Book 5 / Chapter 3
Paragraph 3 - The Nature of Justice and Injustice
Explanation - Part By Part
"This, then, is what the just is-the proportional; the unjust is what violates the proportion."
Aristotle defines justice as maintaining proportion or balance. In other words, a fair and just outcome occurs when things are distributed or handled in a way that keeps proper balance between people or situations. On the other hand, injustice arises when this balance is broken or violated, disrupting the proportional relationship.
"Hence one term becomes too great, the other too small, as indeed happens in practice; for the man who acts unjustly has too much, and the man who is unjustly treated too little, of what is good."
Aristotle is explaining how injustice creates an imbalance in a proportional relationship. When someone acts unjustly, they end up with "too much" of something good (like wealth, honor, or resources), while the person who is wronged ends up with "too little." This imbalance disrupts the fairness that justice aims to achieve. Essentially, justice is about ensuring that no one takes more than their fair share or receives less than they deserve—it maintains balance.
"In the case of evil the reverse is true; for the lesser evil is reckoned a good in comparison with the greater evil, since the lesser evil is rather to be chosen than the greater, and what is worthy of choice is good, and what is worthier of choice a greater good."
What Aristotle is saying here is that when it comes to evils (bad things or harms), we naturally compare them to each other. A lesser evil—something bad, but not as bad as something worse—is considered preferable. It's almost treated like a "good" in comparison to the greater evil, simply because we would rather choose it over the worse option.
This ties back to his broader idea of justice and proportionality: even in negative situations, we assess things relative to one another and make a choice based on what seems "better" or "less harmful." And since what we choose—or prefer—is often considered inherently better, the lesser evil gets treated like it's "good" in that context, even though it's still fundamentally bad.
In short, when facing bad options, we choose the one that's less bad, and therefore it becomes "more good" in a relative sense.
"This, then, is one species of the just."
In this section, Aristotle is explaining one type of justice, specifically justice in terms of proportion or fairness in the distribution of goods (or evils). Justice here is defined as maintaining a balance where proportional relationships between people and things are respected. When this proportion is violated, injustice is created because one person ends up with too much (an unfair excess) and the other with too little (an unfair deficiency).
For example, if we’re distributing benefits (like wealth or honors), giving someone more than they deserve creates an imbalance. Similarly, with burdens or evils (like punishments), the reverse applies: the person who endures less than their fair share is unjustly benefitting, while the one who suffers more than their fair share is unjustly harmed. Aristotle highlights that this kind of justice—or injustice—arises from deviations in what people deserve relative to a fair proportional standard.
By emphasizing this proportional concept, Aristotle links justice to balance and fairness, showing how it’s a matter of preserving harmony in relationships. This discussion focuses on one form of justice—likely distributive justice—which concerns how resources or responsibilities are distributed among individuals in accordance with fairness.