Book 5 / Chapter 10
Paragraph 2 - The Superiority of Equity Over Legal Justice
Explanation - Part By Part
"These, then, are pretty much the considerations that give rise to the problem about the equitable; they are all in a sense correct and not opposed to one another; for the equitable, though it is better than one kind of justice, yet is just, and it is not as being a different class of thing that it is better than the just."
Aristotle is explaining that the concept of equity (or fairness) is closely tied to justice, but it’s a slightly more refined or nuanced version of it. Equity is not an entirely separate or different thing from justice; rather, it is a form of justice that improves upon certain instances of legal justice. While justice is good in itself, equity is seen as a kind of better justice—not because it belongs to a completely different category, but because it corrects or perfects justice in specific situations where the law, by its universal nature, falls short.
"The same thing, then, is just and equitable, and while both are good the equitable is superior. What creates the problem is that the equitable is just, but not the legally just but a correction of legal justice."
Aristotle is explaining here that justice and equity (fairness) are closely related—they’re both aligned with doing the "right" thing—but there’s a distinction. While both are inherently good, equity is considered better in certain situations. Why? Because equity steps in when the rigidness of legal justice (justice as strictly defined by laws) falls short. Equity acts as a correction, a way to address situations where following the law as written would actually lead to unfair or unjust outcomes. So, equity isn't a separate form of justice, but rather an improvement or refinement of it, filling in legal gaps with fairness where laws may fail due to their inflexibility.
"The reason is that all law is universal but about some things it is not possible to make a universal statement which shall be correct. In those cases, then, in which it is necessary to speak universally, but not possible to do so correctly, the law takes the usual case, though it is not ignorant of the possibility of error."
Aristotle is highlighting a limitation of laws: they are meant to apply universally, but life is complex, and not every situation fits neatly into a universal rule. Sometimes, a law that works in most cases cannot perfectly address every specific scenario. So, when laws are written, they are often based on what typically happens ("the usual case"), even though lawmakers are aware that there will be exceptions or unique situations where the law might not apply quite as fairly or justly. This inevitability is not due to bad intention or ignorance but rather the complexity and unpredictability of human affairs.
"And it is none the less correct; for the error is in the law nor in the legislator but in the nature of the thing, since the matter of practical affairs is of this kind from the start."
Aristotle is saying that if a law falls short or doesn't perfectly account for a specific situation, it’s not because the law or the person who made it (the legislator) is inherently flawed or mistaken. Instead, the "error" lies in the nature of reality itself. Practical, real-world matters are inherently complex, variable, and sometimes unpredictable. Laws are universal and aim to apply broadly, but life doesn’t always fit neatly into universal rules. This mismatch isn’t a fault of the lawmaker but a reflection of the way the world naturally works.
"When the law speaks universally, then, and a case arises on it which is not covered by the universal statement, then it is right, where the legislator fails us and has erred by oversimplicity, to correct the omission-to say what the legislator himself would have said had he been present, and would have put into his law if he had known."
This part is discussing a situation where a law, which is written to apply universally (to cover general cases), encounters a specific situation it does not fit perfectly. Aristotle argues that when this happens, it is just to make an adjustment or correction. This correction involves interpreting the law in a way that aligns with what the lawmaker would have intended if they were present to see the unique case in question. It's not about overturning the law but filling in the gaps where the universal wording of the law doesn't apply neatly to a specific circumstance. The principle here is fairness—making sure the spirit of the law is upheld, even if the letter of the law falls short.
"Hence the equitable is just, and better than one kind of justice-not better than absolute justice but better than the error that arises from the absoluteness of the statement."
Here, Aristotle is addressing the connection between "equity" (or fairness) and justice. He argues that equity is a form of justice—it falls within the same ethical realm—but it stands out as a more refined application of it. Specifically, equity corrects the errors that emerge when laws are applied too rigidly or universally.
What Aristotle means by "absolute justice" is the ideal, perfect standard of justice that laws aim to achieve. However, because laws are written in general terms to apply broadly, they can sometimes lead to unfair outcomes in specific or exceptional cases. This is where equity comes in. Equity is not superior to the true, overarching concept of justice (absolute justice), but it is superior to the flawed outcomes that can occur when strict legal justice fails to account for unique circumstances.
In simpler terms, justice is like a general guideline, and equity is the fine-tuning that ensures fairness in situations where the general rule falls short.
"And this is the nature of the equitable, a correction of law where it is defective owing to its universality. In fact this is the reason why all things are not determined by law, that about some things it is impossible to lay down a law, so that a decree is needed."
Aristotle is explaining that equity, or fairness (to epiekes), steps in to address the shortcomings of written laws. Laws operate on universal principles—they aim to cover as many situations as possible with general rules. However, life doesn’t always conform neatly to these one-size-fits-all rules. There are particular cases or circumstances where the rigid application of a universal law might lead to an unjust result, not because the law itself is bad, but because it can't account for every unique detail of reality.
In such situations, equity acts as a corrective tool. It allows for an adjustment or exception to the law so the outcome aligns with true justice. This is why some matters can’t be fully resolved just by strict legal codes; they require flexibility in the form of judgments, decrees, or decisions that account for the nuances of individual cases. Equity bends the rigid framework of the law, much like a flexible leaden rule once used in architecture, which could adapt to the unique shapes of stones in construction, ensuring fairness in application.
"For when the thing is indefinite the rule also is indefinite, like the leaden rule used in making the Lesbian moulding; the rule adapts itself to the shape of the stone and is not rigid, and so too the decree is adapted to the facts."
Aristotle is illustrating his idea with a metaphor here. A "leaden rule" refers to a tool used by builders in ancient Lesbos (an island), which was made of flexible lead. Unlike a rigid rule or ruler, this leaden rule could bend and conform to the unique shape of a stone that was being carved or fitted. Similarly, Aristotle argues that not all situations in life can fit neatly into rigid, universal rules or laws. Some circumstances are so unique or complex that the law, by its general nature, cannot fully address them.
In such cases, a more flexible and adaptive approach is needed, which Aristotle associates with equity (or fairness). Equity serves to "bend" the rigid framework of the law when necessary, adjusting to the particular facts of a situation. Laws are designed to cover broad, standard cases, but equity allows for exceptions or corrections where those laws might otherwise be too rigid and fail to achieve true justice in specific, exceptional scenarios.