Book 5 / Chapter 1
Paragraph 4 - The Ambiguity of Justice and Injustice
Explanation - Part By Part
"Now 'justice' and 'injustice' seem to be ambiguous, but because their different meanings approach near to one another the ambiguity escapes notice and is not obvious as it is, comparatively, when the meanings are far apart, e.g. (for here the difference in outward form is great) as the ambiguity in the use of kleis for the collar-bone of an animal and for that with which we lock a door."
Aristotle is pointing out that the terms "justice" and "injustice" have multiple meanings, but because the meanings are closely related, people often don't realize the ambiguity. This subtle overlap makes it harder to notice the difference between the various meanings. He then contrasts this to cases where meanings are clearly distinct and easier to spot—like the word kleis in Greek, which could refer to either the collarbone of an animal or a key used to lock a door. The physical and conceptual difference between these meanings is so vast that the ambiguity is obvious, unlike with "justice" and "injustice."
"Let us take as a starting-point, then, the various meanings of 'an unjust man'."
Aristotle is directing our attention to the complexity of the term "unjust." He suggests that we begin our analysis by examining the different ways in which a person can be described as "unjust." In other words, he's laying the groundwork to explore the different types or forms of injustice so we can better understand what justice and injustice truly mean. This approach allows clarity and precision in defining these abstract concepts.
"Both the lawless man and the grasping and unfair man are thought to be unjust, so that evidently both the law-abiding and the fair man will be just."
Aristotle is explaining here that the term "unjust" describes two types of individuals: one who breaks the law (lawless) and one who is selfish, greedy, or acts unfairly (grasping and unfair). By identifying these two qualities as unjust, it logically follows that the opposite qualities define someone as just. A just person would therefore be both law-abiding (following rules and laws) and fair (treating others equitably without selfishness or greed). By this, Aristotle is tying justice to both legality and fairness, showing that justice involves both adherence to societal rules and moral integrity in dealing with others.
"The just, then, is the lawful and the fair, the unjust the unlawful and the unfair."
Aristotle is saying here that justice has two key aspects: being lawful (following the rules or laws of a society) and being fair (treating people with equity and avoiding selfishness or greed). On the flip side, injustice involves two opposites: being unlawful (breaking or disregarding the laws) and being unfair (acting selfishly or dishonestly in ways that disadvantage others). Essentially, justice is tied to both respecting societal rules and embodying fairness in our interactions with others.