Book 5 / Chapter 6
Paragraph 1 - Distinction Between Unjust Acts and Being Unjust
Explanation - Part By Part
"Since acting unjustly does not necessarily imply being unjust, we must ask what sort of unjust acts imply that the doer is unjust with respect to each type of injustice, e.g. a thief, an adulterer, or a brigand."
In this part, Aristotle is pointing out an important distinction: just because someone performs an unjust action, it does not automatically mean that they are an unjust person at their core. He is encouraging us to examine what specific types of unjust actions indicate that a person is fundamentally unjust (i.e., has an unjust character) as opposed to simply making a bad choice or committing an unjust act in a particular circumstance.
He uses examples such as a thief (someone who steals), an adulterer (someone who engages in an extramarital affair), or a brigand (a robber or criminal). He’s asking us to think carefully about whether committing these actions necessarily defines the person's character—or if there's more to consider when labeling someone as "unjust" overall. This distinction matters because Aristotle is deeply interested in whether a person’s actions are the result of deliberate intention and choice, or if they might stem from other factors, like emotion or circumstance.
"Surely the answer does not turn on the difference between these types. For a man might even lie with a woman knowing who she was, but the origin of his might be not deliberate choice but passion."
Aristotle is emphasizing here that whether an action makes someone truly unjust depends not just on the action itself but also on the intention behind it. The example he gives is of someone who sleeps with a woman, fully aware of who she is. However, if the act was driven by overwhelming passion rather than a calculated, deliberate choice, the person may have acted unjustly but does not qualify as an inherently unjust person. In other words, the distinction lies in whether the act was a result of deliberate moral failing or just a momentary lapse fueled by emotion.
"He acts unjustly, then, but is not unjust; e.g. a man is not a thief, yet he stole, nor an adulterer, yet he committed adultery; and similarly in all other cases."
Here, Aristotle is distinguishing between acts of injustice and being an unjust person, which is an important nuance in his understanding of morality and character. He’s saying it’s possible for someone to commit an unjust act—like stealing or committing adultery—without that act necessarily defining them as fundamentally unjust or as a "thief" or "adulterer" by character.
This hinges on the idea of intent and choice. If someone commits these actions out of momentary passion, impulse, or ignorance rather than from a deliberate, considered choice, they might not be unjust as a person. For Aristotle, being unjust involves a deeper, consistent disposition of intentionally choosing to act unjustly. A single act, while wrong, does not automatically mean someone embodies that as a defining trait of their character. This emphasizes the difference between isolated actions and a person's deep moral state.