ETHICS

Aristotle is pointing out that some people, notably the Pythagoreans, believed that perfect justice could be understood simply as reciprocity. In other words, they equated justice with the idea of giving back exactly what you received—whether good or bad. This could mean repaying kindness with kindness or harm with harm, in a perfectly symmetrical way. However, Aristotle is about to argue that this definition is too simplistic and doesn't account for all aspects of justice.

Aristotle here addresses the concept of reciprocity—the idea of "an eye for an eye" or that justice should mean a person suffers the same harm they inflicted on someone else. He explains that this notion of reciprocity doesn't fit into either distributive justice (how resources or honors are shared fairly) or rectificatory justice (how wrongs and injustices are corrected).

He highlights that some people, like the Pythagoreans, equated justice entirely with reciprocity. They believed justice simply meant giving back exactly what was given—whether it's harm or reward. Aristotle refers to the mythical justice of Rhadamanthus (a wise judge from Greek mythology) as an example of this idea: the belief that justice is served if someone experiences what they caused others to experience.

However, Aristotle is already hinting that this idea is too simplistic for justice as a whole. Justice, for him, is more complex than mere "payback." He will go on to critique this straightforward view by showing how it often doesn't align with the richer, more nuanced forms of justice society requires.

Aristotle is pointing out that simple reciprocity—"an eye for an eye" or directly returning exactly what was inflicted—is not always compatible with true justice, especially in certain situations. For example:

1. If an official (a person with authority or responsibility) harms someone, it wouldn’t be just to harm the official in return in the exact same way. Their actions might need to be evaluated differently because of their role or responsibilities.

2. If someone harms an official, the response cannot merely be to harm them back equally. There may need to be an added punishment because harming an official could also represent disrespect for the law or authority, not just the physical injury itself.

This distinction highlights that justice isn't only about equal payback; it's about context, roles, intentions, and maintaining overall fairness in society. Simple reciprocity doesn't capture these complexities.

Aristotle is pointing out that there is a significant distinction between actions people do voluntarily—of their own choice and intent—and those they do involuntarily, perhaps by accident, under compulsion, or without full knowledge. This is important when considering justice because the context and intention behind an action affect how it should be judged or rectified. For example, harming someone deliberately is not the same as harming someone by accident, and the response or punishment in a just system should reflect this difference.

Aristotle is saying that in relationships and systems based on exchange (like trade or social interactions), justice operates through a form of balanced reciprocity—not by giving or taking the exact same thing in return, but by ensuring there’s proportional fairness. For example, what’s “fair” exchange between two parties might differ depending on their roles, contributions, or the value being exchanged, but there should still be a balance that feels just. This approach creates harmony and helps maintain relationships and communities, as people feel they are treated equitably—even if not everything is precisely equal.

Aristotle is emphasizing here that maintaining social balance relies on proportional reciprocity. He’s saying that in a functioning society, people naturally expect to give and take in a way that is fair, though not necessarily perfectly equal. If someone wrongs another, justice feels served when a proportionate harm or consequence is returned. On the other hand, when someone does good for another, society thrives on the expectation that goodness will be repaid in kind.

If people are unable to return harm in situations where they've been harmed (or justice isn’t delivered), they feel oppressed, like they’re in a state of "slavery"—trapped under someone else’s control. Similarly, if someone offers goodwill and isn’t repaid, it disrupts the mutual cooperation required for trust and exchange, which are fundamental to keeping society intact. Ultimately, it is this cycle of proportional exchange—both in good and bad—that helps bind the community together and ensure people feel treated fairly.

Here, Aristotle is reflecting on the concept of reciprocity in human relationships, with a specific emphasis on its moral and social importance. He refers to the temple of the Graces, which in Greek culture symbolized harmony, goodwill, and the mutual exchange of kindness. Essentially, he's saying that when someone does something kind or beneficial for us (shows grace), we should feel a sense of obligation to return that kindness—not out of mere duty, but as a way of honoring the relationship and fostering goodwill.

Moreover, Aristotle emphasizes that this reciprocal exchange of kindness or favor isn't just a response but also a way to sustain social bonds. He suggests that sometimes we shouldn't wait for others to act first; we should take the initiative to show grace ourselves. By doing this, we build a culture of mutual generosity and trust, which is crucial for the cohesion and flourishing of any community.

In modern terms, it's the idea of "paying it forward" or ensuring that positive actions are part of an ongoing cycle, strengthening the ties that keep people connected. For Aristotle, these mutual exchanges are rooted in justice and the moral fabric that holds society together.