Book 5 / Chapter 8
Paragraph 2 - Acts of Anger and Justice
Explanation - Part By Part
"Hence acts proceeding from anger are rightly judged not to be done of malice aforethought; for it is not the man who acts in anger but he who enraged him that starts the mischief."
Aristotle is explaining that actions committed in anger are not typically premeditated or done with malicious intent ("malice aforethought"). Instead, these actions are more like impulsive reactions to a provocation. The person who acts out of anger is not entirely the root cause of the wrongdoing—it's the person who provoked or enraged them that set the chain of events in motion. Essentially, the instigator bears a significant share of responsibility for the harm that follows because they created the conditions that triggered the angry reaction.
"Again, the matter in dispute is not whether the thing happened or not, but its justice; for it is apparent injustice that occasions rage."
Aristotle is saying here that, in cases involving anger or disputes, people are not typically arguing about whether an action actually took place—they usually agree on the fact that something happened. Instead, what they are actually arguing about is whether the act was just or unjust. It is this perception of injustice—the belief that someone has been wronged—that triggers anger or conflict in the first place.
In essence, people become upset or enraged not because they doubt the event occurred, but because they feel the event was unfair. For Aristotle, this focus on justice reflects the emotional weight that perceived fairness has in human interactions.
"For they do not dispute about the occurrence of the act-as in commercial transactions where one of the two parties must be vicious-unless they do so owing to forgetfulness; but, agreeing about the fact, they dispute on which side justice lies (whereas a man who has deliberately injured another cannot help knowing that he has done so), so that the one thinks he is being treated unjustly and the other disagrees."
Aristotle is saying here that when disputes arise—such as in situations fueled by anger—it's not usually about whether or not something actually happened. Both parties generally agree on the basic fact of the action that occurred. Instead, the conflict centers on the interpretation of justice—whether the action was fair or unfair.
For example, in cases of commercial transactions, disagreements might emerge because one of the parties is acting out of malicious intent (a "vicious" person), or because of an honest mistake or misremembering ("forgetfulness"). But even in situations of wrongdoing, the person who deliberately caused harm knows they did it; the argument is not about whether harm occurred but whether it was justified. One person feels they've been wronged, and the other person denies this claim, insisting their behavior was justifiable.
So essentially, the debate is less about the event itself and more about moral judgment—who is truly in the right and who is in the wrong.