Aristotle and plato on justice

Aristotle was a student of the often imitated, never paralleled, philosopher, Plato. Although under
the tutelage of Plato for over nineteen years and teaching at the Platonic Academy, Aristotle had
many different views in regards to justice in society. Plato felt that justice was harmony, while
Aristotle felt that it was in the common interest or in other words: justice was a compromise. I will
attempt to provide a deeper understanding of this dilemma.

(Justice is harmony) One would tend to believe that peace, and good will among all individuals in a
community would be the main ingredients necessary to encompass harmony, yet although at first a
simple concept to conceive, the ultimate goal of achieving harmony (justice according to Plato)
requires many different factors. These factors (or pillars) upon which justice in Plato is constructed
include but are not limited to education, interdependence of a communities sub-units, philosophy,
the separation of public and private life, truth, as well as no movement.

In Plato’s Republic, justice is defined in many different ways, none of which seem to keep Socrates
content. Cephalus insisted that justice was telling the truth and paying one’s debts. Polemarchus,
Cephalus’ son, maintained that justice was paying one’s dues. Socrates refuted their argument by
using a mad man as an example. He proved that if one man borrowed another man’s knife and the
owner of the knife went mad, it would not be just to return the knife to the rightful owner for the
owner would be in possible danger of harming himself. Under other circumstances such as a
situation where the owner wanted to go hunting with his knife it would be just to return the knife to
him or her.

Thrasymachus interjects that justice is that which is in the interest of the stronger party. When he
emphasized “stronger party” he implied governing bodies such as political leaders. He said that a
community’s people would follow leaders because the leader’s law would be justice and it would be
the constitution of the community. The problem here is that corrupt officials may make laws and
regulations that wouldn’t be fair to all or even be in the worst interest of some. Some officials would
make laws to simply benefit their own interests. At one point Thrasymachus said that perfect
injustice pays better than perfect justice. Socrates changed Thrasymachus’ mindset by making him
agree that justice was goodness and knowledge and injustice their opposites.

Plato argues that a just state is achieved in a situation in which everyone does one’s own job, where
each part functions properly with an eye to the good of the whole. In a just society, the rulers, the
military, the working-class persons, all do what they ought to do. In a just society, their rulers are
wise, the soldiers are brave, and the producers of material goods exercise self-control and are not
overwhelmed by their desires for gain. (Great Thinkers of the Western World, Ian P. McGeal, editor.)

(Justice as compromise) Aristotle taught that justice was a compromise of the common interests.
The factors included in the belief of justice as a compromise are law, assumption of state and the
assumption of man as political.

Distributive Justice
Theories of distributive justice seek to specify what is meant by a just distribution of goods among
members of society. All liberal theories (in the sense specified below) may be seen as expressions of
laissez-faire with compensations for factors that they consider to be morally arbitrary. More
specifically, such theories may be interpreted as specifying that the outcome of individuals acting
independently, without the intervention of any central authority, is just, provided that those who
fare ill (for reasons that the theories deem to be arbitrary, for example, because they have fewer
talents than others) receive compensation from those who fare well.
Liberal theories of justice consider the process, or outcome, of individuals’ free actions to be just
except insofar as this depends on factors, in the form of personal characteristics, which are
considered to be morally arbitrary. In the present context these factors may be individuals’
preferences, their abilities, and their holdings of land. Such theories may, then, be categorized
according to which of these factors each theory deems to be morally arbitrary.

There is a certain tension between the libertarian and egalitarian theories of justice. Special
attention below is given to the views of Dworkin, Rawls, Nozick, and Sen.

Procedural justice

Procedural justice is the idea of fairness in the processes that resolve disputes and allocate
resources. One aspect of procedural justice is related to discussions of the administration of justice
and legal proceedings. This sense of procedural justice is connected to due process (U.S.),
fundamental justice (Canada), procedural fairness (Australia), and natural justice (other Common law
jurisdictions), but the idea of procedural justice can also be applied to nonlegal contexts in which
some process is employed to resolve conflict or divide benefits or burdens. Other aspects of
procedural justice can also be found in social psychology and sociology issues and organisational
psychology.

Procedural justice concerns the fairness and the transparency of the processes by which decisions
are made, and may be contrasted with distributive justice (fairness in the distribution of rights or
resources), and retributive justice (fairness in the punishment of wrongs). Hearing all parties before
a decision is made is one step which would be considered appropriate to be taken in order that a
process may then be characterised as procedurally fair. Some theories of procedural justice hold that
fair procedure leads to equitable outcomes, even if the requirements of distributive or restorative
justice are not met.It has been suggested that this is the outcome of the higher quality interpersonal
interactions often found in the procedural justice process, which has shown to be stronger in
affecting the perception of fairness during conflict resolution.[citation needed]