Should Bartolomé de Las Casas be included in next year’s political philosophy course?

Snr: 2066990
Word count: 1413
Let me start by saying that I think it is always adequate to include a philosopher in any
academic course. Some better than others will form the bigger picture to the subject you are
attending to study. This was my conclusion after I attended a symposium where people were
discussing how to diminish the income inequality in the Netherlands, forgetting the question why
it is important to fight income inequality (Arminius, 2022).
The philosopher I will discuss in this essay is Bartolomé de Las Casas. He was one of the first
settlers of what now is called North America. With his fellow Spaniards led by Christopher
Columbus, he took part in the conquest of the American Indians - first inhabitants of North
America - by noting what he saw (Clayton, 2012, p.2).
In this essay, I will give you two reasons why Bartolome de Las Casas should not be included in
next year’s Political Philosophy course. The first reason is based on his theory about the natural
law and the second reason is his paradox regarding him seeing difference between African
slaves and American Indian slaves.

His view on the natural law is based on Christianity. Mainly, he says the natural law is based on
individual nature and social nature, this is created by the creator of nature, which he implies
God with (Welch, 2010, p.228).
Before I start giving arguments, there’s one difference that must be clarified. Las Casas is
talking most of the time about the natural law and divine law in the same sentence. The
difference between those two is the fact that the divine law is more a basement for the natural
law. The natural law, which is made by the ruler, moves norms forward based on the divine law,
which is structured by God, or Christiantity as some might say.
In particular, the natural law is a positive law, which teaches that the guilty people must be
punished. The natural law is constructed by the following definition: ‘’Men are obliged to honor
god by the best way available and to offer the best things in sacrifice’’(Welch, 2010, p.224). This
is because men are in depth by God due to the fortunes we receive from him and the sins we do
against him. Also it says that people must spend time on divine matters (Welch, 2010, p.227).
In contrast with the other philosophers of the current Political Philosophy course, Las Casas
shows us a completely different interpretation of the natural law. As I said, his natural law theory
is based on Christianity, whereas the other philosophers in our course like Hobbes, Locke and
Rousseau based their theory on the state of nature. The state of nature is defined as raw
instincts men had before civilization. By looking at this state of nature, we should clarify the acts
of people within civilization and anticipate how we should form the current states.

De las Casas was also known as the protector of the American Indians. Based on christianity,
he tried to show his fellow conquistadors that the American Indians are also humans and we
have to treat them with respect to the christian norms. Although, the reason why the Spaniards
slaughtered the American Indians was that the American Indians did not respect the natural law
of the Spaniards. He concluded that American Indians were always free and the Spaniards
never had a reason to remove that freedom (Clayton, 2012, p.100). He added that the American
Indians must have given consent to the natural law of the Spaniards before getting punished for
not respecting it (Clayton, 2012, p.393).
On the other hand, de las Casas was one of the first promoters of importing African slaves. The
end for their importation was to clear North America of the mess the Spaniards made, by
carrying away the dead bodies of the Indian Americans and working on plantages. His love for
the American Indians was bigger than the human rights of African slaves. This follows from the
thought he had that African slaves could make Indian Americans more free. So I conclude,
unfortunately, that he was a selective racist.

Why las Casas should not be implemented in next year’s political philosophy course is merely
based on the fact that las Casas does not build up on his theory of the natural law. He does not
settle down how to form a state out of it, which the other philosophers in the course surely do.
For example Hobbes, who introduced the Leviathan. His theory in a nutshell is that every man
gives up their power to this ruler in order to become a unity to reach for the commonwealth. So I
might conclude that his political philosophy is too limited for the subjects we face in this course.
Although his philosophy is limited, it could be good to capture another view on the natural law in
respect to christianity in order to broaden our knowledge and above all try to behold the bigger
picture. Mostly I agree with this point, because, as I also said some paragraphs ago, his view of
the natural law is not based on the state of nature, but his theory is based on the divine law.
This shows a different construction regarding the natural law.
As much as I would like to learn more about his theory regarding the natural law, I think that it
would be better to add a philosopher, who shows us a different view on how to implement his
theory in current society, by showing us how a state must function. This other philosopher could
directly define some practicalities we can use in real life in order to create a better state.
Automatically this other philosopher will fit in our current political philosophy course, because he
will be more in line on his subjects than Las casas. Although, if there is a possibility to add Las
Casas to the current political philosophy course, then you have to focus on the natural law. This
idea seems not plausible, because the natural law, I think, has too little political value to fill up a
political philosophy course. Above all, you always need context, such as the state of nature, to
define the natural law. So, again, adding Las Casas to next year’s political philosophy course
would not be plausible.

To continue, we already mentioned that Las Casas was a selective racist; by caring about the
American Indian minority, but completely running over African civilists. Criticastors say that he
was so determined to bring freedom and justice to the American Indians, that he would offer
anything to reach that, including sacrifice the lifes of African slaves (Clayton, 2012, p.135). In
general, he was motivated by two sorts of people, the Spaniards he knew and the American
Indians he met.
But why is this so problematic for denying his political philosophy? Can’t we just look at his
theories and deny his, what we now call, sins? For instance we also discuss Heidegger, of
which we know he was ‘’wrong’’ in World War Two (Heijden, 2022). I understand this objection,
but the problem for me is not that he did not have much morality. Not his place in society is
problematic, but the fact that his philosophy is paradoxical is the main problem.
It is the combination of selective racism and his paradoxical theory, which, in my opinion, is a
strong argument for not including him in next year’s political philosophy course. His theory of the
natural law is sold as a law for human beings. By seeing American Indians as human beings
and African slaves not, his theory, again, is not complete and paradoxical. Due to his own traps
of complexity, it is hard for me to settle the rest of his political philosophy as logical. Thus, I
conclude his political philosophy, due to outrageous paradoxicality, remains null and void for the
current course.

In conclusion, Bartolomé de Las Casas should not be included in next year's political philosophy
course. This statement is grounded by the fact that his political philosophy is too limited to
consider him as effective as the current philosophers in this course, although his view on the
natural law is interesting. It would be better to add a philosopher, who considers the natural law
effective in order to form a state, so we rest with some practicalities, whom we can implement in
current society. Also his selective racism makes his political philosophy not logical and thereby
untrustworthy. Due to this paradoxical theory of him, he let me conclude that his political
philosophy must be held as null and void for the current course.
 Bibliography

- Casas, B., de las Casas, B., & Sullivan, F. (1995). Indian Freedom: The Cause

of Bartolomé de Las Casas, 1484-1566 : a Reader. Sheed & Ward.

- Clayton, L. (2012). Bartolomé de las Casas: A Biography. Cambridge University

Press.

- Geld verdeelt (Arminius, Interviewer). (n.d.). In https://arminius.nl/ . Symposium,

Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands. https://arminius.nl/geld-verdeelt/

- Heijden, M. (n.d.). Metafysika course Tilburg University 2022, jaar 1 BA filosofie.

- Welch, J. R. (2010). Other Voices: Readings in Spanish Philosophy. Amsterdam

University Press.