If you contest a principle, it follows that you are contesting its consequences. If you disagree with Aristotle’s metaphysics (the principles of identity and causality), you’ll inevitably have to reject his theory of justice.
According to Aristotle, justice is a virtue (habitual practice) consisting of giving to each person his due. His definition rests on the principle of identity (that a man possesses moral and physical characteristics that define him) and causality (that he will behave according to those characteristics).
If you accept Aristotle’s principles of identity and causality, it make sense to give everyone his due because you are relying on causality. If the person has earned his wealth and reputation, it is just that those are protected. On the contrary, if he attempts to rob or harm someone else’s, it is fair that he is punished.
The critique against Aristotle’s theory of justice constitutes a critique of his metaphysics. It represents a rejection of identity and causality.
People who reject Aristotle’s definition of justice are in fact saying that persons don’t build their own character (no identity) and that, as a result, it is impossible or pointless to determine who has earned what (no causality).
After Aristotle’s death in 322 BC, the next generation began to question the principles of identity and causality, and rejected Aristotle’s concept of justice.
Aristotle’s theory of justice compared to Epicurus’
Epicurus (341-271 BC) completely distorted Aristotle’s idea of justice. Instead of viewing it as a major virtue, Epicurus did not even consider it worth pursuing.
He talked extensively of pursuing serenity and happiness, but defined them in a vacuum. He regarded them as individual experiences detached from morality, causality, or justice.
Epicurus considered justice a tool (legal procedure) with the sole purpose of preventing and settling conflicts in society. He wanted justice to function well in order to be left alone to seek pleasure and happiness. Other than that, he did not care if each person is receiving its due.
The concept of justice presented by Epicurus is subjective, instrumental, and relativistic. In his eyes, the main command of justice is “to refrain from causing harm.” His conception of justice is so vague that it is worthless for making decisions.
For Epicurus, the primary purpose of philosophy is securing one’s well-being and serenity. Whether the goal is achieved in this or that manner, he did not care. He also did not care about justice as such, which he defined as “do what you want as long as you do not harm me.”
Epicurus defined virtue as the moderate pursuit of pleasures (simple pleasures, preferably) and the avoidance of pain. His command of “do no harm other people” is just an instrument to prevent that victims will retaliate and destroy your happiness.
As a result of his pleasure-seeking views, Epicurus advised to refrain from participating in politics and public affairs. Why should one care if criminals are punished or walk free? What’s the point of ensuring the protection of other people’s property, as long as their losses do not bother you?
It is easy to see the enormous drawbacks of Epicurus’ views and the impossibility of peaceful coexistence in such a context. Aristotle had realized that humans can only coexist peacefully if their rights are protected. Justice isn’t a luxury, but an crucial necessity.
Epicurus’ conception of justice (“do not harm other people”) is completely ignoring the principles of identity and causality. How is one supposed to determine the existence of harm if we cannot ascertain who has earned what, and who owns what?
The justice concept advocated by Epicurus leads to societal collapse. When people reject Aristotle’s concept of justice, it is only a matter of time when theft, parasitism, and confiscations take place on a massive scale.
Aristotle’s theory of justice compared to Seneca’s
An different distortion of Aristotle’s concept of justice is the one presented by Stoicism. Although Stoics formally subscribe to a definition similar to Aristotle’s (“give each person its due”) and reason on this basis, the truth is that they preach defeatism.
Seneca’s ideas (4-65 AD) offer one of the best illustrations. Superficially, he adhered to Aristotle’s concept, but in practice, he gave up all attempts to have justice done because life is too hard and the world is full of evil people.
In his “Moral epistle to Lucilium,” Seneca emphasized the importance of justice for personal and societal well-being, but acknowledged that it is impossible to achieve in most cases.
Unlike Epicurus, Seneca recognized that individuals posses certain characteristics that define them. It’s an idea very similar to Aristotle’s principle of identity. Unfortunately, Seneca failed to recognize the link between identity and causality and had no confidence that good people can ensure justice.
Since Seneca did not trust causality, he regarded the world as a chaotic, random theatre, where good and bad events ensue, bringing happiness and misery with little control of those who suffer the damage or benefit from luck.
For Seneca, it is worth practising justice and the other Stoic virtues (self-discipline, integrity, and rationality) because they make it more likely that you will preserve your happiness, or at least, your serenity.
Although Seneca noted that justice indirectly promotes the harmony and well-being of society, he regarded those benefits as incidental. Those are occurrences derived of pursuing one’s happiness and serenity, not primary philosophical goals.
In this respect, it is obvious that Seneca didn’t trust causality nor considered it worth discussing. His moral writings such as “About clemency” aim at inciting compassion without reason.
Seneca had no understanding of the Aristotelian concept of giving each person its due. Instead of preaching strict justice or proportionality, he sought to promote “good feelings” detached from reality.
Instead of insisting that courts of justice grant reparations to those who have suffered injury, he worked to elicit compassion or clemency. His arguments appeal to irrationality, not to facts.
The practical implementation of Seneca’s ideas leads to dire consequences. Individuals may recognize when harm has been unjustly inflicted, but won’t be motivated to take action if they are convinced that the life is essentially chaotic and unfair.
Seneca’s repeated appeals to benevolence and clemency are just empty words. Without Aristotle’s principles of identity and causality, there can be no order, no justice, and no happiness in society.
Aristotle’s theory of justice compared to Augustine’s
Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) only made things worse. His complete disregard of Aristotle’s principle of causality led him to view the world as hopelessly corrupt. He viewed justice as desirable as unattainable in this earthly life, and commended the victims to expect better treatment in heaven.
Augustine preached that “true justice” exclusively depends on divine law. It depends hundred per cent on God’s will. What earthly courts of justice can dispense is not “true justice,” but a pitiful approximation.
Although Augustine asked for human law to be aligned with divine principles, he didn’t expect such alignment to happen. In his view, human nature is so fallible and corrupt that justice, if it happens at all on earth, should be viewed as a coincidence.
Augustine’s concept of justice involved sin and redemption, and in this way, he detached himself from Aristotle’s definition. Instead of giving to each person his due, Augustine focused on saving the soul of culprits and helping them repent so that they can go to heaven.
In his main work “City of God” (427 BC), he recommended living according to Christian ethics, but expected good people to be rewarded only in heaven.
Other than lamentations and prayer, Augustine supplies zero solutions to earthly injustice. He doesn’t even conceive that life can get better if you determinedly fight for justice. He expects earthy life to be poor and miserable, and asks us to pray to God for mercy.
Augustine’s view of justice inevitably leads to the collapse of civilization. There is no way to sustain agriculture, industry, commerce and investment without clear expectations of earthly justice.
In daily life, praying to God cannot replace crucial societal institutions. We need legal principles that determine who owns what. We need courts of justice that give each person its due. If we abandon Aristotelian principles (as Augustine did), millions of people will starve.
Aristotle’s theory of justice compared to Thomas Aquinas’
Fortunately, a late medieval theologian rescued Aristotelian principles and brought them back to the limelight. I am talking about Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and his major work titled “Summa Theologiae” which he wrote in the last five years of his life.
Like Aristotle, Aquinas identified several types of justice. In “Summa Theologiae,” he speaks of commutative justice (that is meant to govern contracts), distributive justice (for equitable distribution of goods), legal justice (compliance with the laws), and social justice (the pursuit of the common good).
Aquinas four types of justice are as impractical as the two types proposed by Aristotle (distributive justice, and justice for retribution and reparation).
The definitions of the types are imprecise and fail to help us in any way. If a conflict ensues between a landowner and his tenants who want to build an orphanage, who will decide if we should apply the principles of commutative justice, distributive justice, legal justice, or social justice?
Aquinas’ distinctions do not make any sense and only serve to generate confusion. Luckily, he stated that justice requires at the same time the adherence to the law and the use of reason.
I want to underscore Aquinas’ second requirement (“the use of reason”) because it constitutes a fully-fledged return to the Aristotelian principles of identity and causality.
Aquinas’ rediscovery of Aristotelian philosophy is the basis of modern civilization. It brought back to life an idea of justice that had been practically destroyed by prior philosophers. If he had not re-established the Aristotelian concept of “giving to each person his due,” we might still be living in the Dark Ages.
If you are interested in applying Aristotle’s’ ideas to solving real-life problems, I recommend you my book “Undisrupted: How highly effective people deal with disruptions.”
Related articles
Aristotle’s understanding of human flourishing and success compared to Kant’s
Key ideas in Aristotle’s understanding of human flourishing and success
Aristotle’s understanding of human flourishing and success
Impact of Aristotle’s theory of justice
The two keys in Aristotle’s views on politics and governance