Aristotle presented his theory of justice in “Nicomachean Ethics.” He distinguished between two types of justice. On the one hand, distributive justice, and on the other hand, reparation or rectification justice.
Distributive justice deals with the distribution of tangible goods or jobs, and intangible honours. The purpose of this type of justice is to ensure that each person receives what he has earned (“what he deserves”).
Aristotle was rather vague about the criteria for distribution, or about the person who has to perform the distribution. Is the distributive justice based on merit (“earned”) or is it based on personal needs. If it’s the latter, why is it just to take away from person A (who has earned it) and give it to person B (who has not earned it)?
This crucial question remains unanswered in “Nicomachean Ethics” and in other works by Aristotle. He does mention that distributive justice should be carried out with “proportionality” but fails to indicate the parameters for such proportionality.
The second type of justice aims at performing reparations or rectifications. Its purpose is to make amends or rectify wrongs and settle disputes. The results of this type of justice is that the guilty party shall pay compensation to the injured party; or that the guilty party shall be punished for the committed crime.
In practice, this second type of justice is what concerns civil and criminal courts. In their practice, they impose punishments or condemn the defendant to pay compensation.
The purpose of civil and criminal legal actions is to balance the scales. If someone has been wronged, justice shall delivery reparation to restore the balance.
The golden mean in Aristotle’s theory of justice
Unfortunately, Aristotle employed in his ethical framework the concept of the golden mean, a middle-of-the-road point that is in practice impossible to find.
Aristotle regarded as justice the choice for a middle ground between two extremes. In the case of justice, he recommended looking for the middle ground between the extremes of excess and deficiency.
The concept of the golden mean is in fact an ethical error that Aristotle should have corrected. Not only is it impossible to define exactly where the golden mean stands in a particular case, but it also undermines basic rights.
Should someone refrain from telling the truth because other people find it extreme and might be offended? Should a victim of theft recover only half of the stolen goods because he should not be too extreme?
You see where moral vagueness leads. It does not contribute anything to the theory of justice, but generates massive moral hazard. Instead of encouraging individuals to do the right thing and think for themselves, it wastes their time with speculations about a golden mean that does not exist.
Virtue and Aristotle’s theory of justice
For Aristotle, justice is not primarily a legal question, but a personal virtue. A good person is not defined by his observance of rules or regulations, but by a daily behaviour which gives to each person what he deserves.
This concept entails paying one’s debts in time, fulfilling the promises made, honouring one’s word, listening to both parties before passing judgement, etc. It is a drive for finding balance in each interaction, not the blind performance of justice rituals.
In the “Nicomachean Ethics,”Aristotle provides an excellent definition of justice: “the habitual disposition to render to each person his due.” Note the term “habitual” which establishes the concept as a virtue (steady, repeated behaviour), not as rare or occasional.
Aristotle also employed the concept of equity, referring to those cases in which the literal application of the law may lead to justice miscarriage; in those cases, Aristotle recommends the moderation of the law by means of equitable reasoning.
All in all, Aristotle’s views on justice are rather confusing. It would have been better if he had developed his own concepts instead of relying on the ideas popular at that time in Athens. I am referring to Plato’s ideas.
Aristotle’s theory of justice compared to Plato’s
Plato had presented his concept of justice in “The Republic” together with his vision of the ideal society. For Plato, it’s very important that every citizen behaves justly because otherwise it becomes impossible to build a just society.
For Plato, the ideal (“just”) society is one where individuals perform a role aligned with his natural abilities. Plato meant in his cryptic appeal to “alignment” that philosophers should take the pre-eminent role in society, supported by soldiers, and both of them shall live off the peasants and merchants.
I can only categorize Plato’s ideal of justice as self-serving. It helped him argue in favour of a strongly centralized society in which he (as philosopher-king) would enjoy the honours and rewards of a commanding position.
To justify the “just” governance by philosopher-kings, Plato argued that only they possess elevated souls devoted to reason, while the rest of the population possess lower souls primarily concerned by lower desires.
Aristotle’s theory of justice is superior to Plato’s
Plato’s argument is preposterous enough and doesn’t deserve much commentary. When someone argues that he should rule the world because he possesses a rare, elevated soul (“devoted to reason”), he is obviously engaging in propaganda. I wonder who could regard Plato’s self-serving argument as “justice.”
To render his justice ideals even more incredible, Plato saw it as natural that people would want to obey philosopher-kings. He demanded subservience from a large part of the population, and called such subservience “harmonious.”
Plato regarded as the most natural thing in the world that peasants and merchants would have their productive output or goods confiscated for the benefit of philosopher-kings.
Plato’s claim to a position of power because he had special insight into a mythical world of abstractions (which he called “forms”) has no basis in reality.
Despite its deficiencies, Aristotle’s concept of justice is less impractical than Plato’s; at least Aristotle realized that the main purpose of justice is to render each person what is due to him.
If you are interested in applying Aristotelian principles to daily decisions, I recommend you my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”
Related articles
Aristotle’s understanding of human flourishing and success
Critique of Aristotle’s theory of justice
Impact of Aristotle’s theory of justice
The two keys in Aristotle’s views on politics and governance