Book 5 / Chapter 9
Paragraph 6 - Justice and Ignorance in Distribution
Explanation - Part By Part
"Again, if the distributor gave his judgement in ignorance, he does not act unjustly in respect of legal justice, and his judgement is not unjust in this sense, but in a sense it is unjust (for legal justice and primordial justice are different);"
Aristotle is making an important distinction here. If the "distributor" (the person responsible for deciding who gets what) makes a mistake in their judgment due to ignorance—not out of malice or selfish intent—they can't be accused of acting unjustly according to legal justice. Legal justice is concerned with fairness within the framework of laws and rules, and an honest mistake doesn't violate this fairness.
However, Aristotle points out that their judgment may still be unjust in another sense, tied to what he calls primordial justice—a deeper, more universal sense of right and wrong that goes beyond written laws. This suggests that even if someone follows the law but makes a poor decision due to lack of awareness or understanding, their action could still conflict with a broader sense of fairness or natural justice. These two types of justice—legal and primordial—don't always align perfectly.
"but if with knowledge he judged unjustly, he is himself aiming at an excessive share either of gratitude or of revenge."
This part means that if someone knowingly makes an unfair or unjust decision, they are doing so with a purpose—they want something for themselves in return. This could mean they’re seeking gratitude (favors, loyalty, or rewards from the person benefiting from the unfair decision) or revenge (using their decision to harm or punish someone they dislike). Essentially, their unjust action is driven by personal gain, whether emotional, material, or moral satisfaction.
"As much, then, as if he were to share in the plunder, the man who has judged unjustly for these reasons has got too much;"
Aristotle is highlighting that when someone, like a judge or a decision-maker, gives an unjust ruling deliberately—whether to gain gratitude, revenge, or some form of selfish advantage—this person is effectively benefiting unjustly. Even if they aren't directly taking the same thing they are distributing (e.g., property or goods), their unfair judgment still results in their own personal gain, which makes them guilty of injustice. In essence, unjust actions arise not just from what is physically taken, but also from the immoral benefits that someone secures for themselves through their decisions.
"the fact that what he gets is different from what he distributes makes no difference, for even if he awards land with a view to sharing in the plunder he gets not land but money."
In this part, Aristotle explains that when someone distributes something unjustly (e.g., land, wealth, or other benefits), it doesn’t matter if what they personally gain in return is different from what they gave out unfairly. For example, a distributor might give land to someone unjustly, but the motivation for doing so could be their expectation of receiving money or another form of personal benefit in return. What matters is that their action originates from self-interest or a desire for personal gain, not fairness or justice. Their unjust act is rooted in their intent to benefit unfairly, regardless of the specific form that "benefit" takes.