ETHICS

Aristotle is summarizing his previous explanation of justice and injustice by emphasizing that justice lies between two opposing extremes. One extreme is acting unjustly, which involves taking or receiving more than is fair for oneself. The other extreme is being unjustly treated, which means getting less than one deserves or is entitled to. Justice, then, is the balance or "middle ground" between these two—ensuring fairness in what people give and receive. It’s about creating an equilibrium where no one ends up with too much or too little.

What Aristotle is saying here is that justice operates as a "balance" or an intermediate state between two extremes, but it functions differently from the way other virtues (like courage or temperance) aim for a balance. With other virtues, the "mean" is about regulating emotions or actions within ourselves to avoid too much or too little—for example, courage lies between recklessness and cowardice.

Justice, on the other hand, is primarily about what we share or distribute when interacting with others, particularly concerning fairness. It finds a balance in the external relationships, ensuring no one has too much or too little of something, and maintaining proportionality. Injustice, by contrast, arises when this balance is disrupted, leading to one side having an excess (too much) and the other being left with a deficit (too little). So, justice is the "mean" because it seeks to restore this equilibrium among people, ensuring fairness in exchanges, rewards, and punishments.

Here, Aristotle is explaining what it means to act justly. A just person chooses to act in a fair and balanced way, both in their relations with others and when mediating disputes between others. Justice isn't about favoring oneself or disadvantaging others—like taking more of the good things (like resources or benefits) for oneself and leaving less for others, or the reverse when it comes to harmful things. Instead, justice is about ensuring equality, but not in a simplistic "everyone gets the exact same amount" way. Rather, it's about giving each person what is proportional or fair, depending on the context. This principle applies whether the distribution involves oneself and another person, or two third parties.

Aristotle is explaining here that injustice, much like justice, is tied to the idea of balance, but injustice represents the opposite — it disrupts this balance. Justice, as he has discussed earlier, is about maintaining proportional fairness among people. In contrast, injustice occurs when there is an imbalance, which he describes as excess (having too much of something, like a benefit or advantage) or defect (having too little of something, like a necessary good).

This imbalance is contrary to the principle of proportion, meaning that it disregards what each person deserves or is entitled to in the situation. It could happen either by someone unfairly taking more than their share, thereby harming others, or by someone receiving less than they ought to. Thus, injustice disrupts the harmony of fair exchange and distribution that Aristotle ties to justice.

Aristotle is saying that injustice can be understood as either excess or defect. This means that when someone acts unjustly, they end up with too much of something beneficial (like wealth, power, or other advantages) or too little of something harmful (like burdens or responsibilities). On the flip side, injustice can also leave others with too little of what they deserve or force them to bear an undue amount of harm or disadvantage.

For instance, if a person cheats in a transaction, they might gain more profit than they should (that's the excess) while depriving the other party of their fair share (that's the defect). So, injustice disrupts proper balance or proportion, either tilting things too much in someone's favor or pushing them too far against someone. This principle applies not just to the individual committing the unjust act but also to its consequences for others—it creates imbalance for everyone involved.

In this part, Aristotle is explaining that justice is about achieving balance, whereas injustice disturbs that balance by creating inequalities. Specifically, an unjust act has two aspects:

1. If someone ends up with too little of something they deserve, they are being unjustly treated. For instance, if someone is cheated out of their fair payment for work, they are the one suffering from an injustice.

2. On the other hand, if someone ends up with too much, they are the one acting unjustly. For example, if a person takes more than their fair share of resources or benefits, they are committing an injustice because they are disrupting the equilibrium.

Essentially, injustice occurs when there is an imbalance—a surplus for one person and a deficit for another—moving away from what is proportionally fair. Both aspects are tied together: someone gaining too much inevitably means someone else is losing unfairly.

In this closing statement, Aristotle is summarizing his explanation of justice and injustice. He has outlined that justice involves finding a balance or "mean" between extremes—just as in other virtues—but with a specific focus on proportional fairness. Justice exists when individuals receive their fair share, whether in terms of benefits or burdens, based on an agreed-upon proportion. Injustice, on the other hand, represents an imbalance where someone takes too much (acts unjustly) or receives too little (is unjustly treated). This concept of justice is tied to actions and distributions that respect equality and proportionality, while injustice disrupts this balance. By this remark, Aristotle concludes his general description of what it means to act justly or unjustly.