Book 5 / Chapter 3
Paragraph 1 - The Concept of Justice as Equality and Merit
Explanation - Part By Part
"We have shown that both the unjust man and the unjust act are unfair or unequal; now it is clear that there is also an intermediate between the two unequals involved in either case."
Aristotle begins by explaining that both an unjust person and an unjust action have something in common—they involve unfairness or inequality. But where inequality exists, there must also be something in between to balance it out. This "intermediate" acts as a middle ground or equilibrium that counterbalances the extremes of inequality. Essentially, where there’s too much or too little, there’s also the potential for something just and fair to bridge the gap.
"And this is the equal; for in any kind of action in which there's a more and a less there is also what is equal."
Here, Aristotle is pointing out a foundational idea: in any situation where there are extremes—something that is "more" or "less"—there is also a middle ground, a point of balance. This middle point is what he calls the "equal." It represents fairness or equilibrium, where neither party ends up with too much or too little. It's the idea that justice, at its core, is about finding and maintaining this balance, ensuring that no one is at an unfair advantage or disadvantage.
"If, then, the unjust is unequal, just is equal, as all men suppose it to be, even apart from argument. And since the equal is intermediate, the just will be an intermediate."
Aristotle is saying that if being unjust means creating inequality (giving more to one person and less to another unfairly), then being just means creating equality—a balance that people naturally recognize as fair, even without needing a detailed argument. Since equality is about finding a middle ground between "too much" and "too little," justice is essentially this middle point, an equilibrium between extremes.
"Now equality implies at least two things. The just, then, must be both intermediate and equal and relative (i.e. for certain persons)."
Aristotle is explaining that for something to be "equal," it involves comparing two things—you can't have "equality" in isolation. Justice, as a form of equality, must also work in a similar way. It is not an absolute, standalone concept, but something that exists in relation to specific people or situations. In other words, justice is relative—it depends on the relationships and context, like who the people involved are and what is being divided or dealt with. Justice, then, is a balance—an "intermediate"—between extremes, applied within a specific framework of people and circumstances.
"And since the equal intermediate it must be between certain things (which are respectively greater and less); equal, it involves two things; qua just, it is for certain people."
In this part, Aristotle explains that justice, as fairness or equality, lies in finding the "intermediate" between two extremes—something greater and something lesser. For equality to exist, there must be at least two things being compared. Furthermore, justice is not abstract; it is always related to specific individuals ("certain people"). In essence, justice is about balancing relationships or distributing resources appropriately between people, ensuring fairness based on the context. This emphasizes that justice is not a one-size-fits-all concept—it is situational and relational.
"The just, therefore, involves at least four terms; for the persons for whom it is in fact just are two, and the things in which it is manifested, the objects distributed, are two."
Aristotle is explaining that justice, in its essence, requires four components to be understood or applied. Specifically, justice involves two people (the individuals for whom justice is relevant) and two things (the objects, benefits, or consequences being distributed or dealt with). This means that justice operates in a relational framework—it’s not just about one person or one thing in isolation. Instead, justice arises when there is a fair relationship between people (the recipients) and what they are receiving (the resources or outcomes). These four elements together form the basis for identifying what is just or unjust.
"And the same equality will exist between the persons and between the things concerned; for as the latter the things concerned-are related, so are the former; if they are not equal, they will not have what is equal, but this is the origin of quarrels and complaints-when either equals have and are awarded unequal shares, or unequals equal shares."
Aristotle is emphasizing that fairness—or justice—requires proportional equality. This means that people who are equal should receive equal shares of resources or benefits, while people who are unequal (in relevant ways) should receive unequal shares, proportional to their differences. If this balance is disrupted, problems arise: giving unequal treatment to equals, or equal treatment to unequals, leads to conflict, dissatisfaction, and complaints. Essentially, justice depends on maintaining a proper balance between people and what they receive, ensuring that their treatment corresponds appropriately to their status, merit, or contribution.
"Further, this is plain from the fact that awards should be 'according to merit'; for all men agree that what is just in distribution must be according to merit in some sense, though they do not all specify the same sort of merit, but democrats identify it with the status of freeman, supporters of oligarchy with wealth (or with noble birth), and supporters of aristocracy with excellence."
Aristotle is saying that when it comes to distributing resources, honors, or benefits in a fair way, people generally agree that this should be done based on merit. However, there's disagreement about what "merit" actually means. Different groups define it differently:
- Democrats (in Aristotle's time, those favoring equality among free citizens) believe merit is tied to being a free citizen. They emphasize everyone's equal right by virtue of their status as free members of the community, regardless of wealth or other distinctions.
- Supporters of Oligarchy think merit is tied to wealth or sometimes to noble birth. This reflects their belief that those who contribute more financially to the society or come from prestigious families deserve more.
- Supporters of Aristocracy equate merit with excellence or virtue. They argue that those who are morally or intellectually superior should be rewarded accordingly because they embody higher personal qualities.
This highlights a fundamental debate: what qualities or attributes should determine fairness in distributing benefits within a society? Aristotle doesn’t resolve this here, but he acknowledges that each definition of merit leads to different views of justice.