ARISTOTLE JUSTICE
INTRODUCTION
Aristotle (384-322 BC), born near Macedonia in Greece ,is one of the greatest philosophers,
and his moral and political philosophy remains especially influential. He is known as the father
of political science, political pragmatism, founder of historical and comparative methods in
politics, constitutionalism and formal logic. Out of about 30 books, mostly lecture notes,
attributed to him, most famous is Politics and Nicomachean Ethics. He also wrote profusely on
Metaphysics, Biology, Mechanics, Astronomy, Logic, Economics, Politics, Theology, Rhetoric,
Poetics.
Justice is one of the cornerstone concepts in Aristotle's ethical and political philosophy, serving
as a guiding principle for a well-ordered society and individual conduct. In his seminal work,
Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle defines justice not merely as adherence to laws but as a moral
virtue essential for living harmoniously within a community. For him, justice ensures fairness
and equity, facilitating the pursuit of the good life (eudaimonia).
ARISTOTLE CONCEPTION OF JUSTICE
For Aristotle, 'Just’ is what is lawful, fair and promote equity. Aristotle’s conception of justice
can be put in one word called Phronesis. Phronesis translates as practical wisdom that citizens
of the polis must have. Justice extends beyond mere personal virtue to encompass the
rightness and wrongness of actions within a societal context. For Aristotle, to act justly is to act
in accordance with the law. This gives the impression that Aristotle’s understanding of justice is
relativist and particulars,But his purely universalist element of justice can be found in the
principle of equity.
1. UNIVERSAL/GENERAL JUSTICE
Aristotle defines general justice as the overarching virtue that encompasses all moral virtues in
relation to others. It represents a broader form of justice that transcends individual actions and
aims at the common good of the community.For Aristotle, general justice is synonymous with
lawful behavior, but it extends beyond mere legal compliance. Laws, in his view, are not
arbitrary rules but instruments designed to cultivate virtue and ensure the well-being of the polis
(city-state). A just person in the general sense is one who embodies virtues such as honesty,
courage, and generosity, not merely for personal fulfillment but as a contribution to the collective
good. This type of justice reflects Aristotle’s belief that humans are inherently social beings
whose flourishing (eudaimonia) depends on their active participation in a well-ordered society.
Moreover, general justice requires individuals to subordinate their personal interests to the
interests of the community. It bridges the gap between personal morality and public
responsibility, emphasizing that virtuous actions must benefit not only oneself but also others.
This integration of ethical and social dimensions makes general justice foundational to
Aristotle’s vision of a just and virtuous society.
2. PARTICULAR/PARTIAL JUSTICE
The particular justice of Aristotle,is more specific and deals with fairness in individual
transactions and distributions. It is concerned with ensuring that individuals receive what is
rightfully theirs, whether in the distribution of goods or in rectifying wrongs.It is based on the
conception of the state as an association of equals.As a member of this association of equals,
(1) he has his rights in relation to the whole. (2) He has also his rights as against each. To
provide him a system of rights in relation to the wholes· is the 'business of distributive justice. To
protect these rights against the infringement by others, is the work of corrective justice.
● Distributive justice
Distributive justice pertains to the fair allocation of goods, honours, and resources within a
community based on merit, virtue, or need. It aims to foster social harmony and equity by
ensuring that benefits and burdens are shared proportionally among individuals
according to their deserving qualities. It has three elements. There is a body of people to whom
the goods are to be distributed. Then there is some good to be distributed and lastly, there is
some standard of distribution which indicates an attribute to decide to what extent the good
must be distributed.
Aristotle was of the opinion that this form of justice is the most powerful law to prevent any
revolution, as this justice believes in proper and proportionate allocation of offices, honors,
goods and services as per their requirement being a citizen of the state. This justice is mostly
concerned with political privileges. Aristotle advocated that every political organization must
have its own distributive justice. He, however, rejected democratic as well as oligarchic criteria
of justice and permitted the allocation of offices to the virtuous only owing to their highest
contributions to the society, because the virtuous people are few. Aristotle believed that most of
the offices should be allocated to those few only
● Corrective justice
Rectificatory justice, also known as corrective justice, focuses on rectifying wrongs and
resolving disputes between individuals. This form of justice seeks to restore balance by
compensating those who have been wronged, thereby addressing specific injustices.
Rectificatory justice involves appropriate measures such as restitution or punishment to correct
imbalances and restore inividuals to their rightful positions. It is vital for maintaining social order
and fairness by holding individuals accountable for their actions and ensuring that any harm
caused is adequately addressed. What actions would require the application of rectificatory
justice are to be stipulated in the constitution of a particular polis.
Remedial justice is divided into two, dealing with voluntary transactions (civil law) and the
dealing with involuntary transaction (criminal law). Further, Aristotle added commercial and
cumulative justice to the above-mentioned types of justice. Aristotle opined that corrective
justice relates to voluntary and commercial activities such as hire, sale and furnishing security.
These actions involve aggression on life, property, honor and freedom.
Justice and Equality
Aristotle believes that the concept of justice can be associated with fairness. This means that it
has an element of equality associated with it. Aristotle differentiates between two forms of
equality: arithmetic equality and proportional equality. Arithmetic equality denotes strict
numerical equality, where each individual is treated identically because their circumstances are
largely similar and they are also equals. This can be understood as the principle of pure
reciprocity.
in contrast, proportional equality involves involves treating equals equally and unequals
unequally, according to relevant criteria such as merit, contribution,ability, or need.Aristotle
emphasises that understanding justice necessitates recognising and applying proportional
equality, as it ensures that each person receives what is rightfully due based on their particular
qualities and situations.
By upholding the principles of equality in the application of justice, Aristotle’s philosophy
emphasises the need for a just and equitable society where each person’s rights and
contributions are recognised and respected. This comprehensive view of justice, encompassing
both the distribution of resources and the rectification of wrongs, highlights the multifaceted
nature of justice in promoting a well-ordered and morally grounded community.
Justice and Reciprocity
Aristotle explores the relationship between justice and reciprocity, challenging the Pythagorean
view that justice involves simple, equal exchanges. Instead, he argues that justice must
consider the context and relationship between the parties. When parties are equal, justice
requires a reciprocal exchange of equal value. However, in hierarchical or unequal
relationships, justice demands proportionality rather than equivalence, where benefits or
penalties are distributed according to the parties' respective merits or contributions. Thus,
justice involves reciprocity, but it is nuanced and adapted to the specific dynamics of the
exchange, emphasizing fairness rather than strict equality.
### POLITICAL JUSTICE 😁Aristotle’s Concept of Natural and Conventional Justice
Aristotle divides political justice into **natural justice** and **conventional justice**. Natural
justice refers to universal principles that promote human flourishing and societal well-being,
such as the inherent wrongness of acts like murder or theft, which are unjust regardless of laws.
Unlike later thinkers, Aristotle views natural justice as adaptable, changing with societal needs.
Conventional justice, on the other hand, encompasses rules and laws established by human
agreement, such as traffic regulations or property laws. These are context-specific and gain
their authority through societal consensus. Violating these conventions constitutes injustice
within a given community.
Aristotle emphasizes that both forms of justice are interdependent. While natural justice
provides an ethical foundation, conventional justice ensures practical governance. To be truly
just, laws must align with natural principles and adapt to changing conditions, ensuring harmony
and the common good.
Critiques and Limitations of Aristotle’s Justice
While Aristotle’s concept of justice has had a profound influence on Western thought, it is not
without its limitations and critiques:
1. Acceptance of Inequality: Aristotle’s emphasis on proportional equality has been
criticized for justifying social hierarchies and exclusions. His defense of slavery and
subordination of women, for instance, reflects the biases of his time and is incompatible
with contemporary notions of human rights and equality.
2. Subjectivity in Proportionality: Determining what constitutes a fair proportion can be
subjective and contentious, leading to potential disputes and abuses.
3. Neglect of Economic Justice: Although Aristotle discusses distributive justice, he does
not fully address systemic issues of economic inequality or the role of wealth in
perpetuating injustices.
Conclusion
Aristotle’s concept of justice is a rich and multifaceted framework that encompasses general
virtue, fairness in distribution and rectification, and the alignment of individual and societal good.
By grounding justice in both ethical and political dimensions, Aristotle provides a comprehensive
vision of what it means to live well in a community. Although some aspects of his philosophy are
rooted in the historical and cultural context of ancient Greece, his emphasis on proportional
fairness, reciprocity, and the common good continues to inspire and challenge modern thinkers
Aristotle's Justice versus Plato's Justice
Aristotle's· and Plato;s justice, in fact, are complementary, each being strong· where the other
Was weak. They differ in many fundamental respects from each other.
Firstly~ Aristotelian justice lays emphasis on a system of rights, while Platonic justice attaches
more importance to duties. One is a teacher of rights but the other is a preacher of· duties.
Aristotelian justice is based, as it were, on the principle "everyone~ should have his own". The
Platonic justice, on the contrary, is based on the principle ((every one should do his own". The
former, therefore, is a system of rights but the latter is a system of duties.
Secondly, Aristotle's justice is legal in character. The legal side of it is represented by his
corrective justice, the Platonic justice, on the other hand, is essentially moral and philosophical.
It does not provide a system to deal with the clash of interests. It is based on idealism and
hence it is far removed from realities.
Thirdly, Aristotelian justice establishes equality between different members of the state, while
Platonic justice establishes a hierarchy of classes. 'according to this justice, citizens are divided
into three classes, each of which . performs a particular set of functions. Every citizen is bound
to do his dutiesfo r which he is called as an · organ of the state
Lastly, the aristotelian Justice is based on a classification of complete and particular justice.
Plato does not attempt any such classification.his justice rests on three different elements of the
reason,spirit and appetite.
But in spite of this difference, there is ground of common agreement also. The aim of both the
philosophers is to find principle of equality through which unity, harmony, virtue and happiness
can be established in the society. The purpose of both is to give every citizen his due in
accordance with his capacity or nature. Thus, justice in ·the case of both can~ be regarded as
distributive in character. "In both cases, justice is ultimately~ f~nchonal and teleological, and is
not merely a legal, but also a moral principle.
