Book 5 / Chapter 9
Paragraph 2 - The Paradox of Willing Injustice
Explanation - Part By Part
"Is it truly possible to be willingly treated unjustly, or is all suffering of injustice the contrary involuntary, as all unjust action is voluntary? And is all suffering of injustice of the latter kind or else all of the former, or is it sometimes voluntary, sometimes involuntary?"
This part explores a deep and tricky question about human behavior and responsibility: Can someone willingly allow themselves to be treated unjustly, or is all harm suffered from injustice always forced upon them (involuntary at its core)? Aristotle acknowledges that unjust actions—those who commit injustice—are typically done voluntarily, meaning they are intentional and deliberate. But when it comes to those who experience injustice (the suffering side of it), is it always something they are unwilling participants in, or could it sometimes happen by choice or consent?
In simpler terms, Aristotle is wrestling with whether someone can knowingly and intentionally agree to be wronged or if being harmed by injustice is inherently something no one would willingly accept. This reflects the tension between personal responsibility (choosing something) and the external forces that impose harm on us without consent or control. It’s also setting up for him to explore whether injustice is ever symmetrical—voluntary for both sides—or whether it’s inherently opposed (voluntary for the doer, involuntary for the sufferer).
"So, too, with the case of being justly treated; all just action is voluntary, so that it is reasonable that there should be a similar opposition in either case-that both being unjustly and being justly treated should be either alike voluntary or alike involuntary."
Aristotle is arguing that if all just actions are voluntary, then it makes sense to assume that both being treated justly and being treated unjustly might follow the same principle: they should either both be voluntary or both be involuntary. Essentially, he’s exploring whether there’s consistency in how justice and injustice are experienced—are they both something a person willingly consents to, or are they both imposed upon a person without their will? However, this leads to further questions, as the idea that someone might always consent to being treated justly, or unjustly, seems hard to reconcile with lived experience.
"But it would be thought paradoxical even in the case of being justly treated, if it were always voluntary; for some are unwillingly treated justly."
Aristotle is pointing out a seeming contradiction, or "paradox," when it comes to the concept of being justly treated. Normally, we associate justice with something fair and good that a person willingly accepts. However, Aristotle observes that sometimes people might be treated justly in a way they do not want. For example, if someone is punished fairly for wronging others but is unhappy about it, they are being justly treated—but unwillingly. This challenges the intuitive idea that justice is always something you freely agree to or welcome.
"One might raise this question also, whether every one who has suffered what is unjust is being unjustly treated, or on the other hand it is with suffering as with acting."
Aristotle is bringing up an interesting and nuanced question: if someone experiences something unjust (suffers an injustice), does that automatically mean they have been unjustly treated? In other words, does simply being on the receiving end of something unfair or harmful always entail that another person has acted unjustly toward them? Or, does the act of suffering injustice have complexities similar to performing an unjust act?
For example, just as doing something unjust doesn’t necessarily make someone an “unjust person” without understanding their intent or circumstances, Aristotle is suggesting that suffering an injustice might also have layers to it—it’s not always as straightforward as it seems.
"In action and in passivity alike it is possible to partake of justice incidentally, and similarly (it is plain) of injustice; for to do what is unjust is not the same as to act unjustly, nor to suffer what is unjust as to be treated unjustly, and similarly in the case of acting justly and being justly treated; for it is impossible to be unjustly treated if the other does not act unjustly, or justly treated unless he acts justly."
Aristotle is exploring the nuanced nature of justice and injustice. He's pointing out that there's a difference between what happens (the outcome) and how it happens (the intent and context). For example, just because someone experiences an unjust situation (suffering what is unjust) doesn't necessarily mean they're being actively treated unjustly—it depends on whether the person causing the scenario is knowingly and intentionally acting unjustly.
Likewise, when it comes to justice, someone might experience something fair and just, but that doesn't automatically mean the person responsible for the action is acting justly—they might not have intended the action to be just or may not be aware of the justice involved.
In summary: justice and injustice involve both the actions and intentions of the individuals involved. Aristotle emphasizes that a situation of justice or injustice requires deliberate action on the part of the one causing it for the experience to be truly labeled as such.
"Now if to act unjustly is simply to harm some one voluntarily, and 'voluntarily' means 'knowing the person acted on, the instrument, and the manner of one's acting', and the incontinent man voluntarily harms himself, not only will he voluntarily be unjustly treated but it will be possible to treat oneself unjustly."
Aristotle is exploring the idea of what it means to act unjustly and whether someone can be treated unjustly or treat themselves unjustly. He defines acting unjustly as harming someone deliberately, with full knowledge of what you're doing, who you're harming, and how you're doing it ("voluntarily"). But then he brings up a puzzling case: the incontinent man—someone who lacks self-control and harms himself on purpose, knowing what he’s doing but unable to stop.
Aristotle suggests that if this person is harming himself voluntarily (because he knows what he's doing), it seems like he could be both acting unjustly and being treated unjustly at the same time—essentially, treating himself unjustly. This introduces a dilemma: can a person really commit an injustice against themselves, or does justice and injustice only happen in interactions between people? It's a tricky question that challenges how we usually think about justice as being something that occurs between individuals.
"(This also is one of the questions in doubt, whether a man can treat himself unjustly.) Again, a man may voluntarily, owing to incontinence, be harmed by another who acts voluntarily, so that it would be possible to be voluntarily treated unjustly."
Aristotle here is exploring a moral puzzle about justice and injustice: Can someone willingly allow themselves to be treated unfairly or unjustly? He specifically raises the scenario of someone, through incontinence (a lack of self-control or weakness of will), allowing themselves to be harmed by another person who willingly acts. This introduces the possibility that someone might voluntarily accept harm or unfair treatment.
However, this idea is tricky. If justice and injustice require a certain level of voluntary action or intent, it becomes questionable whether willingly accepting harm is truly being "treated unjustly." In essence, Aristotle is wrestling with whether injustice is always something that happens against a person's will or whether, in certain cases (like when someone lacks self-control), they might willingly let themselves be harmed, thus complicating the concept of being treated unjustly.
"Or is our definition incorrect; must we to 'harming another, with knowledge both of the person acted on, of the instrument, and of the manner' add 'contrary to the wish of the person acted on'? Then a man may be voluntarily harmed and voluntarily suffer what is unjust, but no one is voluntarily treated unjustly; for no one wishes to be unjustly treated, not even the incontinent man."
Aristotle is exploring the nuanced distinction between being harmed or suffering an injustice voluntarily versus being treated unjustly. He questions whether the definition of injustice requires not just the act of harm being intentional and with full knowledge (by the person doing the harm), but also that the harm occurs against the will of the person being harmed.
If the definition is correct, then it means that while someone might voluntarily choose to be harmed or accept an unjust act (e.g., due to weakness or other reasons), this does not equate to being "voluntarily treated unjustly." Why? Because for someone to truly be "treated unjustly," they would need to want to experience injustice—which Aristotle argues is impossible. Even a person labeled "incontinent" (someone who acts against their better judgment due to lack of self-control) does not truly wish to be treated unjustly. Their actions and choices might lead to harm, but this harm occurs contrary to their deeper wishes or judgment about what is good.
In essence, Aristotle is saying nobody truly desires to experience injustice, no matter the circumstances. This reinforces the idea that injustice fundamentally involves a conflict with the will or intent of the person affected.
"He acts contrary to his wish; for no one wishes for what he does not think to be good, but the incontinent man does do things that he does not think he ought to do. Again, one who gives what is his own, as Homer says Glaucus gave Diomede."
Aristotle here is wrestling with a subtle point about human behavior, justice, and intention. He is emphasizing that our actions, particularly those involving harm or unfairness, are tied to what we intend and what we wish for. Let’s break it down carefully:
- First, Aristotle notes that no one truly wishes for something they believe to be bad. Even if someone chooses to act in a way that harms themselves or others, they don't fundamentally want that harm—because humans desire what they perceive as good, even if they are mistaken about it. This is why he brings up the figure of the "incontinent man" (a person who struggles with self-control). Such a person might do things they know are wrong, but they act against their deeper wishes due to weakness or impulses. For instance, a person might overeat or lash out in anger, even while realizing it's harmful—what they truly want (self-discipline or peace) is overshadowed in the moment by their lack of control.
- Then Aristotle indirectly references a famous story from Homer’s Iliad, where Glaucus trades his armor with Diomede. In this exchange, Glaucus gives away his valuable golden armor in return for Diomede’s far less valuable bronze armor. The trade seems irrational or unfair, but Glaucus presumably chooses to make this trade for some personal reason, whether it’s honor, camaraderie, or loyalty. This highlights a key idea Aristotle is exploring: A person might willingly sacrifice or harm themselves (materially or otherwise) because they believe they're pursuing something good or valuable—whether or not that belief is correct.
Through these examples, Aristotle is building toward the idea that true injustice involves a clash between intention and outcome, and that concepts like justice, harm, or wrongdoing aren’t always simple. People’s intentions, their choices, and their desires all play a role in determining whether an act is truly just or unjust.