I.
Justice
and Injustice
A.
Justice-is
commonly defined as a state that makes us just agents. In other words, the
state that makes us do justice and wish what is just (67/1129a).
B.
Similarly, to the way that justice is defined so
is injustice- the state that makes us do injustice and wish what is unjust
(67/1129a).
C.
Often
a pair of contrary states is recognized from the other contrary, and often the
states are recognized from their subjects (67/1129a).
D.
For
instance, the good state is thickness of flesh, thus the bad state must be
thinness of flesh, and the thing that produces the good state must be what
produces thickness of flesh (67/1129a).
E.
Justice
is a state of character, and hence may be studied by reference to its contrary.
II.
Justice
and injustice are both spoken of in more than one way (68/1129b).
A.
According
to Aristotle the word justice has two main definitions, that which is lawful
and that which is fair and equal (68/1129b).
B.
According
to Aristotle the word injustice also has two main definitions, that which is
lawless and unfair (68/1129b).
III.
Aristotle
uses the term “General” justice to refer to justice that is lawful (228).
A.
Since
the lawful person is just, it follows that whatever is lawful is just, granted
that the laws are lawful, and thus just (68/1129b).
B.
The
laws aim either at the common benefit of all, or at the benefit of those in
control, whose control rest on virtue according to a correct political system or
a deviant political system (68/1129b).
C.
Thus,
lawful things are in some sense just and whatever produces and maintains
happiness and preserves happiness in a political community is called just
(68/1129b).
D.
The
law also instructs one to do the actions of a brave person, for example not to
flee battle, which requires action corresponding with other virtues and not
vices.
E.
“General”
justice is concerned with the compliance of law, which deal with matters that are
commonly appropriate with respect to virtue or honor and prescribes actions of
a virtuous man through certain commands and prohibitions.
IV.
“General”
justice is “complete virtue” (68/1129b).
A.
It
is complete virtue but not complete virtue without qualification, but complete
virtue in relation to another (69/1129b).
B.
Justice
is often thought to be supreme among the virtues (69/1129b).
C.
Moreover,
justice is complete virtue to the highest degree, since the end of justice is
that of complete virtue (69/1129b).
D.
The
just person is able to exercise virtue for someone else; although the fact is that
many are unable in what concerns others (69/1129b).
E.
Justice
is the only virtue that seems to be another person’s good, since it does what
benefits another (69/1130a).
F.
For
instance, the worst man is one whose evil habits affect both himself and his
friends, while the best man is one whose virtue is directed to others rather
than him (69/1130a).
G.
This
kind of justice is the whole of virtue, and its contrary is the whole of vice (69/1130a).
H.
“General”
justice requires complete virtue of character.
I think this is an easy to follow outline and it was very well constructed. Your premises move very fluidly and doing the reading I am able to understand Aristotle’s thought on justice because of the way you outlined this argument. You give Aristotle’s definition of “general” justice as the “compliance with law that are commonly appropriate with respect to virtue or honor” and I was wondering what you thought Aristotle’s views on Nazi Germany would be. Hitler’s law was for the Nazis to “exterminate” the Jewish people but do you think Aristotle would have the thought the Nazis were virtuous? Your argument goes on to the that “general” virtue is complete virtue and if the Nazis were being lawful and fulfilling their duties, but they were killing millions while doing it, do you think Aristotle would have thought they were completely virtuous?
ReplyDeleteI have just a couple quick comments and questions. The first question is between general justice and individual justice. The way I understood the reading, there are two types of justice: the first is the justice that comes from being wholly virtuous in all other character virtues and is thus the highest virtue as a result. The second justice is justice in individual situations defined by a quantitative arithmetic proportion. I think he makes the distinction between the law and fairness by way of the word "decency" or rather the spirit of fairness applied when the law defaults on technicality. The second issue, or question rather, is if the law seems to be unjust (for we are humans and can often be the case), can one be just and virtuous by following that which is lawful or should he rather be decent and break the law?
ReplyDeleteHey, Ali! I like your question on whether the Nazis were virtuous. My answer is no. I'm going to try to show how Aristotle says this. Towards the end of Book 5, Aristotle asks, "whether it is the man who has assigned to another more than his share that acts unjustly, or he who has the excessive share." To me these questions correlate with your Nazi questions. We can ask, which people are acting unjust: the non-jews who do not have to go to concentration camps or the Nazis who assign jews to concentration camps? The Nazis are not really giving jews an excessive share but an insufficient share. So who is unjust?
ReplyDeleteAristotle ends his argument saying it is the distributor who acts unjust and that "he who gets an excessive share does not act unjustly, though he 'does' what is unjust." So, I think Aristotle would have said that the Nazis were unjust, because they are not distributing fairly. I hope this helps! :)
I had trouble with the definition of justice. What is doing just acts? I’m wondering if a just act comes from justice or vice versa. If justice makes us a “just agent” is that not merely a ramification of justice? I think it is a strong post, but I still don’t quite realize what justice is. I understood Aristotle to differentiate someone being just and justice in that you could be a just person, but not necessarily practice justice. There needs to some sort of action employed.
ReplyDeleteOverall, this outline was very well-done. Your integration of quotes served to back up your premises and lead to your conclusion, good job! I do, however, have a few things I would like to point out, as well as a few questions I would like to propose. The first question I have is, in order to be virtuous and just, do you need to strictly follow the law? In the same regard, if you break the law, does that make you decent? Secondly, your argument could be strengthened by including the fact that the word "justice" comes from the Latin word "jus," which means "right." Right implies a relation of equality in the case of justice, so if an unjust situation is made "right," this is implying that a certain equality has been established. Therefore, a man who habitually wills a relationship of equality is considered just in nature. Finally, in IIID., you write, "The law instructs one to do the actions of a brave person, for example to flee battle, which requires action corresponding with other virtues and not vices." Is this insinuating that a lack of courage equals a lack of justice in mankind? What about an example where someone removes themselves from a situation to avoid injury or fear of a negative outcome; does this mean that they are not just in their nature? Besides these points, great work!
ReplyDelete