Book 5 / Chapter 11
Paragraph 2 - The Impossibility of Self-Injustice
Explanation - Part By Part
"Further (b) in that sense of 'acting unjustly' in which the man who 'acts unjustly' is unjust only and not bad all round, it is not possible to treat oneself unjustly (this is different from the former sense; the unjust man in one sense of the term is wicked in a particularized way just as the coward is, not in the sense of being wicked all round, so that his 'unjust act' does not manifest wickedness in general)."
Aristotle is discussing the idea of "acting unjustly" and how it applies to oneself. He distinguishes between two meanings of being "unjust":
1. A person can be unjust in a specific way without being completely morally corrupt or bad in all aspects of life. For example, someone might act unjustly in certain actions, just as a coward might be brave in some areas but avoid danger in others. In this narrow sense, being unjust refers to a specific flaw or wrongdoing, not a general wickedness of character.
2. In this specific sense of being unjust, Aristotle argues that it is not possible to treat oneself unjustly. Why? Because "injustice" (as he’s defining it here) typically involves relationships between multiple people—someone wronging someone else. If you're just dealing with yourself, that kind of dynamic doesn't exist.
Essentially, injustice in this particular sense requires an imbalance or wrongdoing between two parties. If it's only about you, Aristotle argues that this doesn't fit the nature of what it means to "act unjustly."
"For (i) that would imply the possibility of the same thing's having been subtracted from and added to the same thing at the same time; but this is impossible-the just and the unjust always involve more than one person."
Aristotle is making the point that justice and injustice inherently require interaction between multiple people. Specifically, he argues that it’s logically impossible for the same thing to be both "taken away from" and "given to" the same person at the exact same moment. Justice, by nature, involves a relationship where something is distributed, gained, or lost between two or more individuals. So, treating oneself unjustly doesn't make sense because these concepts—like fairness, equity, or unfair harm—can only exist within the context of social relationships or interactions.
"Further, (ii) unjust action is voluntary and done by choice, and takes the initiative (for the man who because he has suffered does the same in return is not thought to act unjustly); but if a man harms himself he suffers and does the same things at the same time."
Here, Aristotle is arguing that committing an unjust act has specific conditions: it must be voluntary, done by choice, and initiated by the individual. He makes the point that responding to harm suffered (e.g., an act of retaliation) is generally not considered unjust in the same sense because it is reactive rather than an act of independent choice.
Applying this to the idea of harming oneself, Aristotle notes that if a person harms themselves, they simultaneously "do" and "suffer" the harm at the same time. This unique situation makes it impossible to view such an act as "unjust" in the usual way, because there is no clear separation between the person doing the action and the one being harmed. In other words, an unjust act typically requires at least two parties—the doer and the one being wronged—but in self-harm, these roles collapse into one.
"Further, (iii) if a man could treat himself unjustly, he could be voluntarily treated unjustly."
Aristotle is arguing here that if it were possible for a person to treat themselves unjustly, it would also mean that a person could willingly allow someone else to treat them unjustly. However, he believes this idea doesn't make sense within his understanding of justice. Justice, in Aristotle's view, inherently involves one person acting upon another, and for an act to be unjust, it must be something done against a person's will. For someone to "voluntarily" allow injustice to occur would contradict the very nature of injustice, which assumes that the victim does not consent to the unfair treatment.
So, Aristotle is reinforcing his earlier point: injustice always involves multiple people and cannot logically be applied to oneself.
"Besides, (iv) no one acts unjustly without committing particular acts of injustice; but no one can commit adultery with his own wife or housebreaking on his own house or theft on his own property."
In this part, Aristotle is emphasizing that unjust actions always involve certain specific acts of wrongdoing, like adultery, theft, or housebreaking. However, he points out that these acts inherently require a person to harm someone else or someone else's property. For instance, you can't commit adultery with your own spouse because adultery presumes violating a bond with another person. Similarly, you can't break into your own house because it already belongs to you, nor can you steal what is already your own property.
The broader idea here is that injustice inherently involves relationships and actions affecting others. You can't commit these kinds of injustices against yourself because the very definition of them depends on one party wronging another.
"In general, the question 'can a man treat himself unjustly?' is solved also by the distinction we applied to the question 'can a man be voluntarily treated unjustly?'"
This part emphasizes how the question "Can a man treat himself unjustly?" is closely tied to the earlier question Aristotle had explored: "Can a man be voluntarily treated unjustly?" For Aristotle, the answer to both questions is interconnected because concepts of justice and injustice fundamentally involve relationships between people, not just a person’s relationship with themselves.
Just as a person cannot be voluntarily treated unjustly—since injustice involves harm coming from another person, not something one brings upon oneself—similarly, a man cannot treat himself unjustly. Aristotle is reinforcing his idea that acts of justice and injustice require the presence of more than one party. Justice isn’t just about actions; it’s about the relational dynamics between individuals. Therefore, injustice doesn’t happen within a single individual but exists in the space between people.