1

Examination of Justice in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Instructor’s Name

Assignment due date

 2

Nicomachean Ethics is a thoughtful examination of nature and the good life for a human

being. This book is regarded as the most famous works ever by any philosopher and plays a vital

role in defining what's known as Aristotelian ethics. According to the author, the main goal of

ethics is to understand how people and society can achieve happiness. He further clarifies that

happiness majorly depends on living according to the appropriate virtues. Throughout the book,

the author discusses various important topics: courage, temperance, good temper, friendliness,

justice, good ambition, and many others. One of the topics that Aristotle discussed in his book on

Ethics is distributive justice. According to Aristotle, there can be a just distribution to the people

if only done by considering geometrical equality. Distributive justice refers to the degree to

which institutions ensure that burdens and benefits are distributed to the members of the society

following just and fair means. Hence this paper will discuss and examine justice according to

ARISTOTLE'S Nicomachean Ethics.

Justice can be fair or permissibility because injustice is being unfair and the state of

lawlessness. Having laws encourage and enable people to live and behave decently. Being a

virtuous person means one will be lawful and follow all the laws of the land. Decency is a little

different from justice because it majorly refers to a person's moral state, and on the other hand,

justice is how an individual relates to other people. Internationally recognized justice is a

condition of a fair individual. It deals with honor, money, and safety, and when an individual

gains them, another person experiences a loss. Distributive justice mainly entails the supply of

wealth among people in the society using geometric dimensions. According to distributive

justice, each individual receives what's directly proportional to their dignity. It typically implies

an excellent moral and character that receives more than a person of a bad character.
 3

It’s very important for justice to be distributed per unit of population, widely known as

per capita. For instance, when a customer is buying commodities, he or she has to give money or

substitute commodities of equal value since money reflects the demand that’s placed on various

goods and facilitates just exchanges between the parties involved. According to Aristotle, no

individual can agree to suffer injustice (Aristotle’s 2011). When goods or services are unfairly

distributed, the one in charge of distributing is wrong than those who get a significant share at

the end of the whole process. Justice comes only through decent habits, and those who are decent

cannot realize a suitable course of action. When talking about distributive justice, it's good to

note that laws are not applicable in all cases, and also, in some cases, laws don't give out perfect

justice. In this case, equality will be necessary to rebuild the imperfection, and it concludes that

equality is always superior to legal justice but less superior to complete justice.

According to Aristotle, justice is about maintaining social balance. He doesn't

differentiate between the justice derived from criminal cases in the community with the one

involved in legal commerce; instead, he refers to the former involuntary justice and the other

voluntary justice. Regarding the author of the text, cases that result in unfair benefit or loss are a

severe concern of justice. For instance, in the brutal assault and a business transaction, both cases

involve two people where one stands to gain through unfair justice, and the other receives an

equal disadvantage. He further clarifies that injustice is a single extreme and justice entitles all

other virtues.

Aristotle discusses the concept of mean justice and expounds that justice can mean that

individuals were exhibiting appropriate conduct. In contrast, injustice, in this case, means that

individuals have too little or too much. He starts by differentiating between particular justice and

universal justice. The former is a broad trait of a decent character, and the latter majorly deals
 4

with money, honor, and safety as they are all zero-sum goods as one person losses when another

gain. This case is mainly applicable where there's money involved. For instance, if one steals

hundred dollars, he also gains the dollars through unjust means and, in turn, loses a hundred

dollars unjustly. The idea is monogamy to both safety and honor because if one person is

honored, it means the other person was unjustly deprived of the same. In the case involving

safety, abuse to the enemy assures one's safety and leaves the enemy hurt. This concept has been

criticized because of so many reasons. It's very uncertain that one persons' gain is always equal

to the other person's loss. For instance, when one steals a hundred dollars, it is pretty sure the

loss and gain between the two individuals are not the same. The one thing that Aristotle does is

he collaborates particular justice with avarice to have more than what one deserves.

Aristotle has made it known that injustice happens when people want to have more than

what they deserve. According to the author, it is very significant that when one person acts

unjustly, it results in the other individual suffering from unjust measures. He firmly states that a

habit that’s compelled by greed doesn't lead to injustice but results in corruption. This notion

implies that one can suffer a loss and also injustice because of another person's greed. This

discussion by Aristotle confirms that the notion of zero-sum not generally steady with his

thoughts on virtues.

Aristotle further discusses another form of justice which is known as distributive justice.

This is one of the central notions of his thoughts on ethics and politics. His suggestion about

distributive justice is that wealth and honor should be distributed concerning virtue. He clarifies

that a more virtuous individual has a significant contribution to the life and growth of the

community. Hence these individuals have no right to be rewarded and honored than others in

society. But also, his idea on distributive justice shows his bias as he states that slaves, working
 5

men, and women have no rights or freedom to discharge all their virtues; hence they will end up

receiving a small share from the community's wealth. According to distributive justice, more

privileged individuals have access to better things such as leisure, freedom, and wealth. Hence

they deserve great privileges than others in the community. He uses his idea about distributive

justice to bring about the best aristocracy. He further explains that male aristocrats who exhibit

great virtues should rule instead of having vast wealth, friends, or military strength. He works on

the issue to ensure that the just institutions in the society are defended and not to defend

injustices in the society.

Aristotle challenges all forms of governance, either oligarchical, democratic, or

aristocratic, to ensure that distributive justice is considered. He states that goods are supposed to

be distributed regarding the system demand. While stating the following, he avoids to takes sides

on which system of justice is better. He clarifies that the distribution of goods should respect the

status of the people, especially the political status of the people in question (Leontsini, E. 2015).

It's inevitable that various political systems have a different distributive mechanism and should

live with their system to ensure its followed and implemented accordingly. Following the

distributive ideals put in place will help in arriving at what is and unjust. Without doing so, some

people in society will suffer injustices.

In the third section of book four, Aristotle explains that fights and accusations arise when

people receive an unequal distribution of things because of their inequality. Also, when equal

people get the unequal distribution of things can bring about fights in the community. This

statement implies that for people to stay in peace without fights and accusations, the distribution

of things has to be fair and just. When people receive an unequal share of the commodities,

regardless of the equality in social classes, they will end up in disagreements. On the same
 6

concept, he adds that for people not to think or realize there is unjust distribution because of their

social classes and what they receive, distribution should be done regarding merit. Following

merit, each individual will receive what they deserve. With excellence, there will be just

distribution. Aristotle makes it clear that what is just in the distribution has particular merit. But

it's important to note that merit doesn't mean the same thing across various political systems

(Knoll, M. A. 2016). For democrats, they will say it's freedom, while oligarchs will say it's well,

and aristocrats while talking about virtues, and he ends up concluding, in this case, is a specific

proportion.

To explain what is just and unjust, Aristotle brings another concept known as corrective

justice. This is a type of justice that’s mainly concerned with the reversal of wrongdoings. It's

concerned with injustice rectification through interactions. This justice occurs in both

involuntary and voluntary measures. In this case, the is certain equality and inevitable unjust

inequality. The author explains that when the distribution is derived from shared resources, it

will have the same ratio. The main of corrective justice is to restore equality, according to

Aristotle. He argues that if one person did harm, the other person is harmed; hence for the court

of justice, the judge has to restore balance by making everyone equal (Weinrib, E. J. 2018). The

judge plays a vital role by being in the middle of the two people in conflict. He has to restore

equality because he's fair. He does so by subtracting from one side and adding to the other side.

It becomes both a gain and a loss and comes from the voluntary transaction. In this case, when

people have neither less nor more of what they contributed, they assume they have their original

share, and therefore neither suffered a loss nor gained.

According to Aristotle, with corrective justice, injustice unjust distribution. In this case,

when one gets what's in excess, of gets what's less. Deficiency and excess bring about injustices.
 7

To ensure that there is no injustice, then the judge's beings about the balance eliminate what's

excess and add what's missing. While justice is a specific means, a person has to distribute things

concerning another and not distribute excess of what's good to himself and then give his

neighbor what's less but rather distribute what's equal.

In the end, Aristotle teaches us natural justice has to be just in places and at all times. He

also adds that laws are just because it's good to have laws than being in a situation of

lawlessness. Through justice, he explains how to restore balance and justice in a society. Our

community will be better since, with a working justice, there will be few injustices. Although

there many inconsistencies in the notion of justice and injustices, Aristotle gives a thoughtful

milestone that plays a significant role in developing a working justice and political systems.

Through just means and avoiding injustices, society can be better and happier. Stable

government and a society can only be built through strong justice system regardless of the

political system in the society. A good justice system play a vital role the societal growth and

development.
 8

References

Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics. University of Chicago Press, 2011.

Knoll, M. A. (2016). The Meaning of Distributive Justice for Aristotle's Theory of

Constitutions. ΠΗΓΗ/FONS, 1(1), 57-97.

Leontsini, E. (2015). Justice and moderation in the state: Aristotle and beyond. In Philosophy of

Justice (pp. 27-42). Springer, Dordrecht.

Weinrib, E. J. (2018). Essay the Gains and Losses of Corrective Justice. In Restitution (pp. 547-

567). Routledge.