Conclusion: One can never act unjustly toward him/herself.
Premises
1 1. Justice
is determined in equality of distribution.
a. For
if the people involved are not equal, they will not ‘justly’ receive equal
shares. (1131a 20)
b. In
equality and injustice causes conflict (i)
c. Whenever
equals receive unequal shares, or unequals equal shares, in a distribution,
that is the source of quarrels and accusations. (1131a 25)
2 2. An
just person cannot be unfair when he is distributing. (i)
a. Just
must be intermediate and equal, and relate to something and for some people.
(1131a 15)
b. It
must be between too much and too little; insofar as it is equal, it involves
two things; and insofar as it is just, it is just for some people. (1131a 15)
3 3. A
justly virtuous person cannot distribute to oneself unequally.
a. The
same person could not lose or gain the same thing at the same time. (1138a 15)
b. What
is just or unjust must always involve more than one person. (1138a25)
c. No
one commits adultery with his own wife, or burgles his own house, or Steals his
own possessions. (1138a 25)
4 4. Justice
is voluntary therefore when acting with injustice it is involuntary except by
coincidence.
a. Whenever
one does them unwillingly, one neither does justice nor does Injustice, except coincidentally. (1135a
20)
b. An
act of injustice and a just act are defined by the voluntary. For when the act
is voluntary, the agent is blamed. (1135a 20)
5 5. One cannot act unjust toward himself. (i)
a. For
it is impossible to suffer injustice if no one does injustice and impossible to
receive justice is no one does justice. (1136a 30)
b. The
same person could not lose or gain the same thing at the same time.
(1138a 15)
c. What
is just or unjust must always involve more than one person. (1138a25)
d. No
one commits adultery with his own wife, or burgles his own house, or steals his
own possessions. (1138a 25)
6 6. Even
in suicide one does not act unjustly to himself or herself.
a. If
someone suicides he/she is in violation of reason and therefore not virtuous
and does not willingly act with injustice. (i)
b. No
one willingly suffers injustice. (1138a 10)
c. The
city-state is the one who receives the act of injustice. (i)
d. That
is why city both penalizes him and inflicts further dishonor on him for destroying
himself, on the ground that he does injustice to the city. (1138a 10)
Premise 2b qualifies that the distribution of justice has to be between “too much and two little” (1131a 18). This premise is consistent with one we discussed in class. When we discussed bravery we mentioned Aristotle’s belief that a virtue is placed between to the two vices, abundance and scarcity. Like how bravery is the perfect balance between confidence and fear, the distribution of justice has to be the perfect balance between absolute justice and injustice. Do you think Aristotle derived the claim you make in 2b from his previous discussion on the balance between virtue and vices?
ReplyDeletePremise 2 states that a just person cannot be unfair when he is distributing. Aristotle does mention and explain both points under this premise, explaining that the just is a medium between the two extremes of "too much" and "too little". However, the way it is phrased makes me raise some questions regarding the just person in connection to anyone (whether just or unjust) being referred to in the conclusion. You state that the just person cannot be unfair when he is distributing, but how does this apply to anyone/everyone in relation to themselves? Is there a connection that can be made between being just in distributing to others and being just towards oneself? Or is distributing justly to others a sign of the presence of justice as a virtue in oneself in a more basic sense?
ReplyDeleteI would only suggest that perhaps the conclusion is altered a little, instead of it reading "One can never act unjustly toward him/herself" perhaps it should read "A virtuous person can never act unjustly toward him/herself". The only reason that I suggest this alternative is because of the last premise, in which you write that suicide is not an injustice towards oneself, because the person committing it is not virtuous. I thought your outline was logical and concise. It would have been interesting to talk with Aristotle about mental disease, like depression. If he thinks that people who commit suicide lack virtue, then he must think those who suffer from depression lack virtue. Something I disagree with.
ReplyDelete