Book 5 / Chapter 2
Paragraph 3 - The Division of Justice and Injustice
Explanation - Part By Part
"The unjust has been divided into the unlawful and the unfair, and the just into the lawful and the fair. To the unlawful answers the afore-mentioned sense of injustice."
Aristotle is distinguishing between two types of injustice: unlawful and unfair. The unlawful refers to actions that go against established laws, which aligns with what he previously described as injustice in the broader, legal sense. This is the kind of injustice where someone violates the rules or norms that govern a community or society.
"But since unfair and the unlawful are not the same, but are different as a part is from its whole (for all that is unfair is unlawful, but not all that is unlawful is unfair), the unjust and injustice in the sense of the unfair are not the same as but different from the former kind, as part from whole; for injustice in this sense is a part of injustice in the wide sense, and similarly justice in the one sense of justice in the other."
Aristotle is making a distinction here about the nature of being "unfair" versus being "unlawful." He argues that while all unfair actions are also unlawful (meaning they go against laws or rules), not all unlawful actions are necessarily unfair. To put it another way: "unfairness" is a more specific subset of "unlawfulness."
Think of "unlawfulness" as a broad category that includes all types of wrongdoing against the rules. However, within that broad category, "unfairness" refers specifically to situations where there’s an imbalance or inequality between people, such as when someone takes more than their fair share. This makes "unfairness" a part of the bigger whole that is "unlawfulness," but it’s not equivalent to it.
Similarly, Aristotle applies this distinction to "justice" and "injustice." There’s a broader sense where justice means simply following all laws and being virtuous, and there’s a narrower, specific sense where justice involves fairness and proper balance in relationships with others.
In essence, he’s separating general wrongdoing (unlawful) from specific wrongdoing (unfair), emphasizing that fairness is a particular part of justice, not the whole of it.
"Therefore we must speak also about particular justice and particular and similarly about the just and the unjust."
Here Aristotle is distinguishing between two levels or types of justice: general justice and particular justice. General justice refers to the overarching idea of being lawful and virtuous in a broad sense—living in alignment with what is good for society as a whole. Particular justice, on the other hand, deals with fairness in specific situations or actions, like ensuring equality and balance in exchanges, distributions, or relationships with others.
By saying "we must speak also about particular justice," he is shifting focus to this narrower, more specific concept. He's emphasizing that justice isn't just about obeying laws or being virtuous in a general sense, but also about fairness in specific interactions, such as fair trade, equitable treatment, or avoiding exploitation. This distinction is important because justice, in its full sense, encompasses both broad societal principles and actionable fairness in daily life.
"The justice, then, which answers to the whole of virtue, and the corresponding injustice, one being the exercise of virtue as a whole, and the other that of vice as a whole, towards one's neighbour, we may leave on one side."
In this part, Aristotle is setting aside a broad concept of justice that encompasses all virtues and their opposites (vices) as they relate to other people. Essentially, he is saying that there is a type of justice tied to virtuous behavior overall, where living a morally excellent life means treating others rightly. On the other hand, injustice here refers to embodying all forms of vice in how one treats others. However, Aristotle is not going to focus on this overarching sense of justice and injustice for now—he considers it too broad and leaves it "on one side" to focus on a more specific aspect of justice, which he'll address next.
"And how the meanings of 'just' and 'unjust' which answer to these are to be distinguished is evident; for practically the majority of the acts commanded by the law are those which are prescribed from the point of view of virtue taken as a whole; for the law bids us practise every virtue and forbids us to practise any vice."
Aristotle is discussing how the concepts of "just" and "unjust" relate to laws and virtue. He points out that most laws are created with the goal of promoting overall virtuous behavior and discouraging vice. Essentially, laws aim to guide people toward moral actions and away from immoral ones, framing justice not just as a legal obligation but as part of living virtuously. Justice, in this sense, is closely tied to the broader idea of being a good and morally upright individual within a community.
"And the things that tend to produce virtue taken as a whole are those of the acts prescribed by the law which have been prescribed with a view to education for the common good."
Aristotle is stating that laws are designed to encourage behaviors that cultivate virtue in society as a whole. In other words, the rules and principles set by laws aren't random—they aim to guide people toward moral excellence and good character. The purpose behind these legal norms goes beyond simply maintaining order; they are meant to educate individuals and shape them into virtuous citizens, promoting the well-being of the entire community. Laws, therefore, play a role in fostering collective virtue, which benefits everyone.
"But with regard to the education of the individual as such, which makes him without qualification a good man, we must determine later whether this is the function of the political art or of another; for perhaps it is not the same to be a good man and a good citizen of any state taken at random."
Aristotle is making an important distinction here. He’s suggesting that the education of an individual to make them absolutely a "good person" might not necessarily align with the education needed to make them a "good citizen" of any random state. In other words, the characteristics of being a morally virtuous person (a "good man") might differ from the traits needed to function well as a contributing member of a particular society (a "good citizen").
He hints at a deeper question: Is it the role of politics (or governance) to shape individuals into good people, or is this the responsibility of some other discipline or art (e.g., philosophy, personal virtue cultivation)? He keeps this open-ended for now, implying that it requires further exploration. This reflects Aristotle’s broader concern about the relationship between personal virtue, the good of the individual, and the good of the community. Not every state may perfectly mirror or prioritize what is necessary to cultivate individual goodness.