ETHICS

Aristotle now shifts his discussion to a second type of justice—rectificatory justice. This type deals with fairness in individual transactions, whether they happen voluntarily (e.g., buying, selling, agreements) or involuntarily (e.g., theft, fraud, harm caused by crime). Unlike the justice concerned with distributing resources in proportion to people's contributions (distributive justice), rectificatory justice focuses on correcting imbalances or wrongs that occur between individuals, restoring equality in a straightforward way. Its nature and purpose are distinct from the earlier form of justice, as it isn't about proportional allocation but rather about making things equal after an injustice has taken place.

Aristotle is explaining a specific kind of justice, called distributive justice, which deals with dividing shared resources or benefits (like wealth, power, or honors) among people. The idea is that these distributions should follow a proportion. This proportion is not simply splitting things into equal parts, but rather distributing them based on what each person deserves—often determined by their contributions, role, or merit. For instance, in a partnership, the profits might be split according to how much each partner invested.

On the flip side, injustice in this context happens when this proportion is broken—when someone gets more or less than their fair share, disrupting the balance. Essentially, what Aristotle is emphasizing here is that fairness in distribution depends on maintaining a just proportionality, not arbitrary equality.

Okay, here's what Aristotle is getting at:

This part of the text focuses on a different kind of justice—rectificatory justice, which is all about correcting wrongs in situations where one person has unfairly gained something at the expense of another. This type of justice applies to both voluntary dealings (like business transactions) and involuntary actions (like theft or injury).

The key point is that when one person wrongs another, an imbalance is created: the wrongdoer is seen as having gained something (even if it’s not a gain in the usual sense, like profit—it could be an unfair advantage or causing harm without consequences), and the victim suffers a corresponding loss. Aristotle argues that this kind of injustice is about inequality, not proportional fairness like in distributive justice.

To restore justice, a judge steps in and serves as a neutral party. The judge’s role is to "equalize" the situation. This means they aim to remove the unfair "gain" from the wrongdoer and restore it to the person who was wronged. For example, if someone defrauds someone else in a contract, the judge imposes a penalty (like repaying what was taken), balancing things out so that neither party ends up with more or less than they deserve. Essentially, the judge serves as a living embodiment of justice, ensuring fairness through this rectification process.

In simpler terms, if someone cheats you or hurts you, rectificatory justice is about stepping in to make sure things are set right by correcting the imbalance—taking from the wrongdoer what they unfairly gained and giving back to the victim what they unfairly lost.

Aristotle is explaining how terms like "gain" and "loss" are used when rectifying injustices in interactions between people. In such cases, when harm or wrongdoing occurs, the person who commits the act (e.g., fraud, theft, or injury) is seen to have "gained" something—whether that's material benefit, an unfair advantage, or even satisfaction at someone else's expense—while the person who suffers the wrongdoing experiences a "loss," such as losing property, safety, or well-being. These terms are broad and might not perfectly fit every situation (like when physical harm is involved), but Aristotle uses them to describe the imbalance created by injustice: one party takes more than they should (gain), while the other is left with less (loss).

Aristotle is explaining how "corrective justice" works as a form of fairness between people. He starts by saying the "equal" is the middle point between two extremes—a loss on one side and a gain on the other. To understand fairness or justice in this sense, you have to look at situations where an imbalance has occurred. For example, if one person has taken too much (a "gain"), another person must have suffered a corresponding lack or harm (a "loss"). Corrective justice steps in to restore balance by bringing both parties back to that middle state of equality.

The key idea is that justice isn't about who the individuals are (their status, goodness, or wickedness) but about undoing the imbalance itself. This equilibrium is the just or fair outcome in these cases. Corrective justice, then, acts as a balancing force that corrects any excess or deficiency in what one person has versus what the other has lost.

Aristotle is explaining the idea of corrective or rectificatory justice, which is about fixing imbalances that arise between people due to unfair actions (like harm, theft, or deceit). When disputes happen, people turn to a judge to resolve things. The judge's role, in essence, is to restore equality by adjusting what one person unfairly gained and what the other unfairly lost.

Aristotle uses the metaphor of dividing a line to illustrate this process. Imagine a line split into two unequal parts—one longer (representing someone who gained unfairly) and one shorter (representing the victim who lost something). To make things fair, the judge figuratively "takes from the longer part"—removing the excess—and adds it to the shorter part, so that both become equal. This act symbolizes rectifying injustice by re-establishing balance or fairness between the two parties.

In this part, Aristotle is giving a mathematical analogy to explain how justice aims to restore balance. Imagine you have two equal parts, but you take some from one and give it to the other. The recipient then ends up with an imbalance that is double the amount removed—because not only has their share increased, but the other's share has decreased by the same amount.

For instance, if you have two equal pieces of string and cut one in half, then attach that half to the other string, the newly added string will make the other piece longer by double that removed portion. Aristotle uses this idea to reason about fairness when correcting injustices—what was lost needs to be subtracted from the gain of the one who took too much, so equality is restored. This is how justice, as a process, attempts to bring balance back to unequal situations caused by wrongdoing.

Alright, in this part Aristotle is diving into a very mathematical explanation of justice as an intermediate balance, specifically in cases of corrective or rectificatory justice—justice that deals with righting wrongs in transactions between people. Let’s break down this dense excerpt into manageable ideas.

Aristotle is basically trying to explain "balancing" using the example of dividing something unequally and then correcting it. He’s portraying this as though justice works like a line with unequal segments, and the goal of the judge is to "rebalance" the parts so they are equal again.

1. "It therefore exceeds the intermediate by one..."
Here, Aristotle is saying that when something is out of balance, the excess (too much) and the deficit (too little) are both measured relative to an intermediate point, which represents fairness or justice. If one side has "too much," we subtract from it; if one has "too little," we add to it.

2. "...exceeds the line EA' by the segment CD and the segment CF..."
Think of it like this: Imagine two unequal parts. One (line "DCC'") has extra (segments "CD" and "CF"), and another (line "EA'") is missing what the other side gained. The numbers or lengths don't matter; the focus is making them equal by correctly redistributing.

3. "...therefore it exceeds the line Bb' by the segment CD."
Aristotle is pointing out that by adding or subtracting these excess parts, both lines can become intermediate (fair and equal). The judge's role is to figure out what needs to be adjusted and ensure that no party is unjustly "too much" or "too little" compared to this intermediate balance.

Key Point: The whole example shows how corrective justice is like a math problem. It’s about restoring fairness by rebalancing gains and losses. This is why Aristotle compares the concept of justice to "equalizing a line" geometrically—it’s his way of illustrating fairness visually and logically.

While Aristotle’s explanation might feel overly complicated, the takeaway is clear: the role of the judge or mediator is to restore balance, and justice is this state of balance where neither side has an unfair advantage or deficit.