Book 5 / Chapter 7
Paragraph 1 - The Distinction Between Natural and Legal Justice
Explanation - Part By Part
"Of political justice part is natural, part legal, natural, that which everywhere has the same force and does not exist by people's thinking this or that; legal, that which is originally indifferent, but when it has been laid down is not indifferent, e.g. that a prisoner's ransom shall be a mina, or that a goat and not two sheep shall be sacrificed, and again all the laws that are passed for particular cases, e.g. that sacrifice shall be made in honour of Brasidas, and the provisions of decrees."
Aristotle is explaining that political justice, which governs life within a community or state, can be divided into two kinds: natural justice and legal justice.
- Natural justice refers to principles that hold true universally, regardless of what people think or decide. These are fundamental truths that don't depend on human opinion or culture and remain constant everywhere. For example, something like "it’s wrong to harm others without a valid reason" could be considered naturally just because it applies universally in human societies.
- Legal justice, on the other hand, comes from laws or rules that humans create. These rules are not inherently necessary or universal but become binding once they are established. For example, decisions like "a prisoner's ransom shall be a specific amount (a mina)" or "a goat should be sacrificed instead of two sheep" are examples of legal justice. These laws or rules are specific to certain places, times, or circumstances, and might change from one society to another since they are based on convention or agreement rather than universal truth.
Aristotle gives examples to show that legal justice involves human decisions that could have been otherwise but gain force once they are ‘laid down’ as law. Laws like honoring a specific historical figure (Brasidas, in this case) or particular policies set for unique cases fall into this category. In short, natural justice is universal and unchanging, while legal justice is local, practical, and adaptable.
"Now some think that all justice is of this sort, because that which is by nature is unchangeable and has everywhere the same force (as fire burns both here and in Persia), while they see change in the things recognized as just."
In this part, Aristotle is addressing a common misconception held by some people about justice. These individuals believe that all justice is based purely on human conventions, meaning it is entirely created by human societies and subject to change. They think this way because they observe that what is considered "just" often varies between societies and circumstances, unlike natural phenomena (like fire burning) which are consistent everywhere. To illustrate, fire burns the same way "both here and in Persia," suggesting it is bound by unchanging natural laws, whereas human ideas about justice appear more flexible and variable. Aristotle, however, is challenging this oversimplified view, arguing that while some aspects of justice do indeed arise from human laws and customs, there is also a form of justice that exists by nature, independent of human decisions.
"This, however, is not true in this unqualified way, but is true in a sense; or rather, with the gods it is perhaps not true at all, while with us there is something that is just even by nature, yet all of it is changeable; but still some is by nature, some not by nature."
Aristotle is addressing the debate over whether justice is entirely based on natural laws that remain constant everywhere or entirely based on human-made laws that vary. He argues that this isn't a black-and-white issue. While there is something innate or natural about certain aspects of justice—things that seem universally "just" by their nature—these elements are still subject to change in the human world. In contrast, he suggests that in the realm of the gods (if we consider their perfection), justice may remain unchanging. For humans, though, even natural justice can adapt over time or context, though it's distinct from purely man-made rules, which depend on cultural or societal agreements.
"It is evident which sort of thing, among things capable of being otherwise, is by nature, and which is not but is legal and conventional, assuming that both are equally changeable."
Aristotle is explaining that we can distinguish between two kinds of justice: justice that is rooted in nature and justice that is created by human laws and conventions. Even though both types of justice can change in some ways, we can still recognize which type belongs to "nature" and which arises from societal or legal agreements. For example, natural justice has a kind of universal truth to it, while legal or conventional justice depends on human decisions and varies across cultures and societies.
"And in all other things the same distinction will apply; by nature the right hand is stronger, yet it is possible that all men should come to be ambidextrous."
Aristotle is making a comparison here to clarify the distinction between what is "natural" and what is "conventional" or shaped by circumstances. He uses the example of the right hand being naturally stronger than the left. This is an observation about human biology: most people are naturally right-handed. However, with effort and training, it is possible for a person to become ambidextrous, meaning they can use both hands equally well.
The broader point he is making is this: things that are rooted "in nature" (like the natural dominance of the right hand) can still be influenced or altered by human habits, decisions, and practices. Similarly, when it comes to justice, some aspects are natural and universally true, but others are shaped and varied by the customs, laws, or agreements of a particular society. Both natural and conventional aspects of justice can coexist, but they operate differently.
"The things which are just by virtue of convention and expediency are like measures; for wine and corn measures are not everywhere equal, but larger in wholesale and smaller in retail markets."
In this part, Aristotle is comparing the concept of justice created by human conventions (laws, customs, or rules) to the way we measure things like wine or grain. Just as the size of a measure can vary depending on the context—for example, being larger in wholesale markets and smaller in retail ones—so too, justice based on human enactments (what's considered fair or lawful) can differ depending on the situation, place, or society. This type of justice is not universal because it adjusts according to what is practical or necessary in specific circumstances, unlike natural justice, which Aristotle implies has a more consistent and universal character.
"Similarly, the things which are just not by nature but by human enactment are not everywhere the same, since constitutions also are not the same, though there is but one which is everywhere by nature the best."
Aristotle is explaining that "justice" can arise from two main sources: nature and human decisions (or laws enacted by societies). The justice that comes from human laws—what is determined and implemented by people—varies across different communities, cultures, and governments, because societies have different perspectives, traditions, and political systems (constitutions). What one society deems just may differ significantly from another's.
However, Aristotle introduces the idea that there is a single, natural standard of justice that would universally be the best. This means that while human-made justice changes from place to place, there exists a concept of justice tied to the natural order of the world—something inherent and universal—that surpasses all human variations. This "natural justice" would be the ultimate and ideal form of justice, even if human laws often fail to align with it.
"Of things just and lawful each is related as the universal to its particulars; for the things that are done are many, but of them each is one, since it is universal."
Aristotle is explaining a relationship between general principles (universals) and specific actions or rules (particulars) regarding justice and law. Think of "universals" as overarching ideas or concepts, like fairness or equality, which apply broadly to many situations. "Particulars," on the other hand, are the specific instances or actions that express these universal ideas, such as specific laws or decisions made in certain cases.
He’s saying that while there are many specific actions or laws (the particulars), they are all connected to a single underlying idea or principle (the universal). For example, there might be various traffic laws (particulars), but they are all tied to the universal idea of maintaining safety and order on the roads.
Essentially, Aristotle is pointing out that justice and law can be divided into a universal principle that guides them and the many specific ways that principle is applied in practice. Each specific action or law represents a manifestation of a broader, universal concept of justice.