Book 5 / Chapter 9
Paragraph 4 - Questions of Justice and Self-Harm
Explanation - Part By Part
"Of the questions we intended to discuss two still remain for discussion; (3) whether it is the man who has assigned to another more than his share that acts unjustly, or he who has the excessive share, and (4) whether it is possible to treat oneself unjustly."
Aristotle is continuing his examination of justice and injustice, now diving into two key questions that remain unresolved:
1. Who is responsible for injustice when there's an unfair distribution? Is it the person who distributes more than a fair amount to someone else (the "giver") who acts unjustly? Or is it the person who receives and keeps more than their fair share (the "recipient")?
2. Can someone treat themselves unjustly? Is it possible for a person to act in a way that makes them both the victim and the perpetrator of injustice?
These questions push the discussion deeper into the mechanics of justice, particularly in terms of responsibility and self-directed actions. Aristotle wants to figure out how fairness plays out in instances of giving and receiving, and he also wants to explore the limits of self-inflicted injustice.
"The questions are connected; for if the former alternative is possible and the distributor acts unjustly and not the man who has the excessive share, then if a man assigns more to another than to himself, knowingly and voluntarily, he treats himself unjustly; which is what modest people seem to do, since the virtuous man tends to take less than his share."
Here, Aristotle is exploring the complex relationship between justice, fairness, and personal choices. He’s asking if someone acts unjustly by giving another person more than their share, and in doing so, gives less to themselves. According to this logic, does this mean they’ve treated themselves unjustly? This question seems to arise because virtuous or modest individuals often willingly take less than what they deserve, showing generosity or selflessness.
By pointing out this tendency of virtuous people to accept a smaller share for the benefit of others, Aristotle is wrestling with whether such an act can truly be classified as "unjust" toward oneself. Is it unjust, or is it just a voluntary, noble choice?
"Or does this statement too need qualification? For (a) he perhaps gets more than his share of some other good, e.g. of honour or of intrinsic nobility."
Aristotle is raising an interesting point here. He’s questioning whether a seemingly virtuous action—like someone voluntarily taking less than their fair share of material goods—actually needs to be assessed more deeply. Specifically, he’s wondering if this person might, in fact, be "compensated" by receiving other types of benefits, like honor or recognition for their virtuous behavior, or even a sense of personal nobility. In other words, while this person might outwardly appear to lose out or sacrifice, they may be gaining something intangible but equally valuable in return. This suggests that "fairness" or "justice" isn’t always as straightforward as what we first perceive—it’s not just about material goods, but also about other forms of value.
"(b) The question is solved by applying the distinction we applied to unjust action; for he suffers nothing contrary to his own wish, so that he is not unjustly treated as far as this goes, but at most only suffers harm."
In this part, Aristotle is addressing a tricky question: can someone treat themselves unjustly? He resolves it by referring back to a distinction he made earlier about what makes an act "unjust." For an action to be considered unjust against someone, it has to go against their will or wishes.
If someone voluntarily decides to give themselves less than their fair share or knowingly causes harm to themselves, they aren't being unjustly treated, because they chose it willingly. Instead, they might simply be causing harm to themselves out of their own preference or for some greater good — but this isn't the same thing as being "unjustly treated." Aristotle is making the point that injustice involves a lack of consent and goes beyond mere harm.
So, for example, a virtuous person who gives up some material gain to others, while appearing to "shortchange" themselves, isn't being treated unfairly because they are doing so willingly and not against their will.