Book 5 / Chapter 10
Paragraph 1 - Equity and the Equitable in Relation to Justice
Explanation - Part By Part
"Our next subject is equity and the equitable (to epiekes), and their respective relations to justice and the just."
Here, Aristotle introduces a new topic: equity (to epiekes) and the equitable. He wants to explore how these ideas relate to justice and the just. Essentially, he's setting out to clarify whether equity and justice are the same thing, closely related, or fundamentally different. This signals an important discussion about fairness and flexibility in applying rules, which he sees as deeply tied to the concept of justice but perhaps distinct in certain ways.
"For on examination they appear to be neither absolutely the same nor generically different; and while we sometimes praise what is equitable and the equitable man (so that we apply the name by way of praise even to instances of the other virtues, instead of 'good' meaning by epieikestebon that a thing is better),"
Aristotle is diving into the concept of equity (fairness) and how it connects to justice. He observes that equity and justice are closely related but not exactly identical—yet they’re also not completely distinct from one another. He points out that sometimes we praise people or actions as "equitable" (fair) in a way that suggests it's even better than simply doing what is just. In fact, calling someone or something "equitable" often implies an extra layer of goodness, something a bit above and beyond just being "just." Aristotle even suggests that, in context, people sometimes use the term "equitable" as a sort of higher compliment for other virtues, like generosity or kindness, because it conveys an exceptional form of goodness.
"at other times, when we reason it out, it seems strange if the equitable, being something different from the just, is yet praiseworthy; for either the just or the equitable is not good, if they are different; or, if both are good, they are the same."
Aristotle is diving into an interesting philosophical puzzle here. He’s discussing the nature of what is "equitable" (fairness or flexibility in applying justice) and how it relates to "justice" (the broader principle of what is right and lawful). He’s pointing out a tension:
- If equity is different from justice, why is it still considered good and praiseworthy? After all, we assume justice is good too. If they’re different, does that mean one is less good, or not good at all?
- If equity and justice are both good, then does that mean they’re actually the same thing? But if that’s the case, why do we even distinguish between the two?
In short, Aristotle is challenging us to think about how two seemingly distinct concepts—justice and equity—can both be considered good, while still remaining separate. It’s a way of questioning whether there’s a deeper connection or overlap between them that we might not immediately see.