THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS BOOK 5, CHAPTER 1 (1128B36-1130A13) SUMMARY

• This is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak—where Aristotle's discussion of
moral virtues moves into action.
• Now we're talking about justice and injustice.
• Aristotle posits that justice is the "middle term" or golden mean—but we'll have to work a
bit to get at the extremes and what sorts of actions are related to justice.
• He calls justice a "characteristic," something that disposes a person to act justly or to wish
for just things.
• It can be useful to deduce what justice is by opposition (i.e. by looking at what is unjust).
So he begins with a description of the unjust person.
• An unjust person might be: 1) a lawbreaker; 2) a person who wants more than his fair
share; 3) an "unequal" or unfair person.
• A major problem with the unjust is that they always take the smaller share of what is bad.
Which means that he always wants the lion's share of what is good.
• Aristotle deduces that if the unjust disregard the law, what is legal should also be what is
just.
• Laws aim to make people good citizens (by enforcing virtuous behavior). This means that
the law is primarily concerned with the common good.
• Therefore, the law is (or should be) just. Or at least, ready to serve the just cause.
• If a law is badly made, it'll try to mandate good behavior in bad ways. In ideal
circumstances, the law preserves public happiness and safety in the right way.
• Aristotle calls justice a "complete" or perfect virtue, because it's the highest good in
relation to how we live together in a community.
• Justice requires us to behave fairly even to people outside of our immediate circle of
family and friends, which is a huge sticking point for many people.
• Aristotle calls the person who's able to exercise virtue to the advantage of others in the
community not only just, but the very best of people.
• Justice, then, is virtue in a nutshell. Injustice is all of vice neatly summed up—not just one
vice by itself.
• He mentions that justice can be a larger, general concept (between people in a
community) or a more particular characteristic that a person can possess (as a virtue).

THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS BOOK 5, CHAPTER 2 (1130A14-1131A9) SUMMARY

• For now, Aristotle wants to focus on justice as a virtue—and injustice as a vice.
• Injustice presents itself in two ways: 1) a particular type, that deals with the unequal
distribution of goods; 2) a more general type, that involves lawbreaking and all other vices
in general.
• Here's an equation to help: unjust = unlawful + unequal; just = lawful + equal.
• Aristotle reiterates that "unlawful" and "unequal" are two different categories. Again,
"unlawful" is a general category of injustice.
• "Unequal" is a specific type of unlawfulness. It's a grasping for more of the goods in life
(honor, money, security, etc) than we deserve.
• We can also think of justice in the particular (equality/fairness) or general (lawfulness)
sense.
• Ready for some more hair-splitting? Particular justice can be further split into two forms.
• The first is distributive (i.e. the proper distribution of goods in a community); the second is
corrective, concerning interactions between people.
• But wait! There's more!
 • Corrective justice can be split into two further categories: voluntary and involuntary
transactions/interactions.
• Aristotle defines voluntary transactions as mostly business ones: buying, selling, lending,
etc.
• Involuntary involve violations, like theft, adultery, assault, rape, death.
• You know, the really unpleasant stuff that at least one party does not want to be involved
in.

THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS BOOK 5, CHAPTER 3 (1131A10-1131B24) SUMMARY

• Hang on tight, because things are about to get hairy. Aristotle wants to define the middle
term for injustice. And it's going to involve mathematical equations.
• He posits that since the unjust are unequal, the middle term must be "equal." Therefore,
the just are the "golden mean" in terms of social and political beings.
• But we can't stop there. Aristotle insists that the "just" involves four terms: two people
involved and two "matters of concern."
• This means that there must be at least two people involved for a question of justice to
arise, and that each of the two people brings an issue or need to the table.
• Everybody and everything in this equation must be equal—otherwise discord and
inequality arises.
• In speaking of equal distribution, Aristotle isn't speaking of simple equality, where
everyone gets the same exact thing. In this case, it's equality based on merit or worth.
• But what measures worth/merit? Aristotle proposes a certain mathematical proportion
expressed as a ratio of the four terms.
• Properly speaking, the ratio is a geometric one—a proportion of lines.
• All of this is to say that the "just" is the middle term, and that it represents an equal
distribution (based on the proper proportion) of things held in common.
• Things that are "unjust" or "unequal" defy this proportion—meaning that there is more on
one side and proportionally less on the other.
• Aristotle says that this is an accurate reflection of actions in life: the unjust grab more of
the good and those who suffer injustice are left with more than their fair share of the bad.
• If something (or someone) is to be considered just, he would need to have the lesser
share of badness.
• In other words, he would have to have good things and behave fairly toward others.
• In order to right the wrongs of injustice, there has to be a correction of the unfair
distribution that causes suffering.

THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS BOOK 5, CHAPTER 4 (1131B25-1132B20) SUMMARY

• Here we have specifics on "corrective justice." If you recall, this involves voluntary and
involuntary transactions/interactions.
• This type of justice also has to do with equality. But the proportion involved here is
"arithmetic" (rather than the geometric one Aristotle proposes in Chapter 3).
• This equation deals with lawfulness and harm done. It doesn't matter who's been hurt (or
who does the hurting). If a wrong has been done, the law must address it.
• It's the judge's job to make things right here—to restore the balance of justice. He does
this by punishing (i.e. inflicting loss on) a person who's gained in some way from unlawful
action.
• Aristotle wants to make sure we understand the terms "gain" and "loss" so that we can
arrive at equality (which is the middle term here).
• "Gain" = more of the good; "loss" = less of the good (or more of the bad).
 • To re-establish equilibrium, corrective justice seeks that middle place, which may mean
inflicting loss on someone who has unrightfully gained something.
• Aristotle says that people go to a judge to resolve their disputes because a judge should
be "the just ensouled."
• Their job is to find that place of equality to make things right.
• Aristotle uses geometry again to illustrate how a judge restores equality in each of his
cases.
• If we think of a line that has been cut into unequal parts, imagine the judge as one who
takes the excess from the larger line and adds it to the smaller line.
• Aristotle provides a more precise arithmetical proportion to calculate by how much a larger
line should be reduced to achieve equality.
• Loss and gain belongs to voluntary transactions (i.e. business transactions, one that at
least two parties can enter into voluntarily).
• When we take only exactly what we've contributed, then we can say that we have neither
lost nor gained.
• Aristotle calls this just distribution: coming out with neither more nor less, but with your
skin intact.

THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS BOOK 5, CHAPTER 5 (1132B21-1134A17) SUMMARY

• Aristotle investigates the possibility that reciprocity (i.e. we scratch your back, you scratch
ours) is a kind of justice.
• But he comes to the conclusion that reciprocity in a community is neither distributive nor
corrective justice. It's a kind of "eye for an eye" type of justice.
• And in some cases, reciprocal justice just doesn't fly. Case in point? If a sovereign
punches a subject, it is not okay for the subject to sock him back.
• Aristotle says that proportional reciprocity is an important kind of social justice in
communities based on exchange.
• Since mutual exchange is a kind of glue that holds communities together, Aristotle adds
this in to his geometric proportion as another variable: "proportionate reciprocal giving."
• He uses the example of a house builder and a shoemaker who wish to exchange goods/
services. In order for the transaction to be just, they have to establish proportional
equality.
• This means that they have to figure out how many shoes equal the type of house-building
services at issue here.
• When this equality is reached, reciprocal giving can take place.
• Aristotle says that all work doesn't have to be equally important or valuable to be
exchanged. The parties only need to work out a proper proportion for everyone to be
happy.
• And so it is that communities require people of different occupations in order to thrive.
• Aristotle discusses currency ($$) as the great equalizer in commercial exchanges.
• In this way, money provides a constant variable that all goods and services can be
compared to.
• Once everything has a proportional monetary value, we can see more objectively what
things are equal.
• Reciprocity can only happen when all variables are somehow made equal.
• Money helps to do this by stabilizing need: it ensures that a person can buy what he
needs, rather than simply hoping that he has the right goods or services to exchange.
• Aristotle says that equality (at least, financial equality) can really only be reached if all
things have a value assigned to them.
 • This keeps the door to exchange open—and this is the fundamental basis for a
community.
• He squeezes justice back into this equation by explaining that community relies on
exchange; exchange on equality; equality on the ability to figure out what things are worth.
• Nicely done.
• To recap on justice (and the just): 1) It's a middle term, and injustice is the extreme; 2) It's
a characteristic which disposes people to be concerned with fairness.
• To recap on injustice (and the unjust): 1) It's both excess (taking more of the good) and
deficiency (taking less of the bad); 2) It's worse to commit an injustice than to suffer one.

THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS BOOK 5, CHAPTER 6 (1134A17-1134B18) SUMMARY

• Aristotle says that it's possible to commit an injustice without being an unjust person. So
just how awful do you have to be in order to be called unjust?
• First, Aristotle has to figure out who is a candidate for justice (hint: it's not for everybody).
• It is only for those to whom the law applies—for those living in a community, a political
entity. Without community, there is no law—and therefore, no injustice is possible.
• The law keeps things in balance—not humans.
• If humans took it into their hands without the guidance of the law, rulers would always
become tyrants.
• That's because humans would choose more of the good and less of the bad for
themselves if left to their own devices.
• Aristotle says that a ruler should be a "guardian of the just," distributing what is good
proportionally and fairly.
• What does a ruler stand to gain if he doesn't hoard all of the good for himself? In being
just, he earns honor and privilege—which are the highest goods.
• The term "just" is relative. Aristotle claims that there can be no injustice from either a
father or a slavemaster, since "things" aren't part of a system of justice. Um. Yikes.
• Children are considered part of the father's body (at least, until they come of age)—and it
isn't possible to be unjust to oneself.
• Justice can be applied to a man's wife, but not in the political sense as Aristotle has
defined it, since there is no law in that community of two.
THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS BOOK 5, CHAPTER 7 (1134B18-1135A16) SUMMARY

• Political justice has two parts: natural and conventional. Natural justice is a general
concept that applies everywhere. This is a universal idea of justice, one that no one
anywhere would debate.
• Conventional justice is more particular and community-specific. It regulates everyday
transactions (i.e. how much to pay for ransom, when to make a sacrifice).
• Aristotle muses on the changeability of justice. Isn't all justice really merely conventional,
changing with values and beliefs?
• He waffles some more by saying that there's a universal sense of what is just—but that it
may also be variable.
• Aristotle compares conventional justice to the trading of wine and corn in different places.
The measures of these commodities may differ in different kingdoms.
• But Aristotle says there's one regime that upholds natural justice, and it's the best one (in
which the common good is promoted? In which the virtuous receive merit?).
• Justice in the general sense differs from a more particular sense in other ways. What is
just by nature does not become particular (conventional) justice until a just act is done.
 • So natural justice is a kind of universal idea; conventional (particular) justice is the
performance of just acts, as interpreted by law.
• And injustice/unjust acts? The same ideas apply.
THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS BOOK 5, CHAPTER 8 (1135A17-1136A9) SUMMARY
• A person can only do an unjust or just act if they do so voluntarily.
• If you do an unjust act involuntarily (check out Aristotle's definition of this), you might be
blamed—but not considered 100% unjust.
• A quick recap of involuntary action: 1) when a person acts in ignorance; 2) when the
action is not his choice; 3) when the action is forced.
• There are also incidental actions—things we do not intend to be just or unjust, but they
end up being so.
• Aristotle says that what is voluntary is something deliberated on beforehand.
• He includes as involuntary the things we do in ignorance and under ignorance.
• These are three: 1) when a person doesn't realize that he'll cause harm or use a harmful
instrument; 2) when the action isn't aimed at a particular person; 3) the "end" is
unexpected.
• If in any of these cases, the person involuntarily acts unjustly and causes harm—it isn't
what he intended. This can only be called error.
• If there's pre-meditation (i.e. deliberation), then the act is properly unjust. And if we harm
someone intentionally but without deliberation, it's still unjust.
• But if these acts of injustice don't come about because of wickedness and conscious
choice, the doer is not an unjust person.
• Aristotle says that in matters of judgment, it's not the result that we dispute. If there's a
body lying on the ground in a pool of blood, we pretty much know that we've got a violent
death.
• The real thing at issue is who is at fault. What is the just action that will set things right?
• When a person harms by choice, he behaves unjustly. And when that person seeks to
gain more of anything through an unjust act, he actually becomes unjust.
• On the other side of the spectrum, a person may be called just if he performs just acts
voluntarily.
• Aristotle addresses forgiveness as well. We can forgive involuntary things (or not).
• If they are done without understanding, they might be forgiven. If done in a "passion," they
might not be forgiven.

THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS BOOK 5, CHAPTER 9 (1136A10-1137A31) SUMMARY

• Aristotle opens with "perplexities": whether a person can suffer injustice (or justice)
voluntarily, or if everyone who suffers something unjust suffers injustice (same for justice).
• Also, is it possible to do an injustice to yourself?
• Back to the first question: can a person suffer injustice voluntarily—say, by bad behavior
on his part—by someone who is also acting voluntarily?
• Aristotle wonders if we shouldn't add another dimension to his definition of injustice: that it
has to be done voluntarily and against the other person's wishes.
• He thinks it is a good addendum, since no one really wishes to be harmed, even if he acts
self-destructively.
• He concludes that it's not up to the person suffering to determine whether or not he's been
a victim of injustice.
• And so Aristotle answers his own questions: suffering injustice cannot be voluntary, since
no one wishes to be harmed.
• Also, if an act is to be unjust, it has to have been voluntarily committed by a second party.
 • Two more picky details to consider: 1) Can a person who gives someone more than he
deserves be unjust; 2) Or is it the person who receives more than he should the unjust
one?
• Aristotle answers these questions by engaging the earlier question about whether we can
be unjust to ourselves.
• He says that if giving more of our own goods than is deserved is unjust, then we are
unjust to ourselves.
• But since an unjust act must be against the person's wish—and the giver gives voluntarily
—there can be no self-inflicted injustice.
• Neither is the receiver unjust, though it's technically an unjust thing to receive more than
you're worth.
• And yet, the giver does do an unjust thing by distributing more than what a person
deserves. As you can see, Aristotle does lots of fence-sitting here.
• Ultimately, it depends on the giver's intentions. If he has made an error in judgment, then
he himself is not an unjust person, though the act of giving too much is unjust.
• If he has judged correctly, he's perhaps giving too much in the hopes of gaining more than
his fair share of honor. And that's somehow bad.
• One thing is really clear from all this hemming and hawing: doing the just thing isn't as
easy as it seems.
• It's not simply choosing the right thing to do. We also have to have the right intention.
• It's also difficult to discern between the just and unjust things, because the law tells us
how to behave.
• But as Aristotle says, the law is merely the tip of the justice iceberg.
• Aristotle makes a final observation: justice is human.
• Wherever there can be excess or deficiency of good things, that's where the principles of
justice apply. (Hint: not with the gods).

THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS BOOK 5, CHAPTER 10 (1137A32-1138A34) SUMMARY

• On to equity and the equitable. Aristotle says that the equitable is superior to the just—
though they're both in the same category.
• Therefore, it's not wrong to say that the equitable is also what is just.
• The difficulty? That which is equitable isn't always what's just according to the law.
• Because the general law may not address a particular case adequately, we need what's
equitable to correct it.
• So equity arises when there's a correction of a law to address what's lacking because it's
too general.
• The law in Aristotle's day has recourse to decrees that bring about equity, since they can
be applied to a specific situation when it arises.
• An equitable person will choose just action and correct the law when it's not perfect in its
justice. He'll even take less for himself if he sees that it'll restore social balance.