16

Aristotle;s Theory of Justice

''Justice ·is relative to persons; and a just distribution is one in which the
relative value~· of the things given correspond to those of the persons
receiving. " - Aristotle.

1. Introductory ,
Plato, the profound and iearned teacher of Aristotle, regarded justice
as the very life and breath of the state. He recommended justice as
a remedy against amateurish me<ldle-someness and political selfishness,
which had characterised the life of Athenian citizens in his own times.
Aristotle also believes, like his master, that ·justice is the very 'e ssence
of the state, ·and · that no polity can endure for a long time unless it
is founded on ·a rig~t scheme of justice. It is with this consideration
in view that Aristotle proceeds to set forth his theory of justice. The .
theory, however,· was not developed by him in isolation. The Rep.ublic
of Plato ·serves as a great·,gU:ide. But Aristotle does not want to travel·
the· b,eat_e~ track:· ·H e travels through fresh woods and -pastures. But
it do'e.s net' mean tMit by this ·'new ~pp roach and attitude he shows a
disregardrand disresp'ect 'to liis teacher who ·loved him so dearly and .
consid~red him'.' ·as th·e ,bJs't ~n'tellect of' his school. He h~s his own
convictio'ns about· thi~gs ·which 'iiripel him to speak the truth howsoever
bitter. "He sees the root of endless ·mysticism and scholarly .nonsense in
r
I

Aristotle's Theory of Justice I 157

1
this Platonic re~sm ; a.pd he attacks it with all the vigour of a first polemic".
'½.s Brutus loved not Caesar less but Rome mo_re, so Aristotle says, Atnicus
Plato sed ma is amica veritas- "Dear is Plato earer still i[-iruth" i
As in respect of other theo-ries so also in ·respect of the Uieory of justice,
Aristotle does not -hesitate to speak the truth. He removes the deficiency
and imperfection of the Platonic theory, and attaches to it a new force of
reality and correctness by setting forth a new one.

2. Justice as· a Complete Virtue

Aristotle regards justice as a complete virtue. In other words, a completely
just man, according to Aristotle, was completely virtuous. Plato also regarded
justice as the very essence of morality. To him also the ·'just' and the 'moralist'
are convertible terms. To Plato, justice was the name of that kind life where
every individual does his own work for which he is fitted by the very elements
of his soul. For Aristotle, the end of ·the state is ·the promotion of good
life. The realization of this end depends on the realization of a life · of
-common action. The life of common action may become a possibility,
provided the citizens of a state act in comformity to the laws of that state.
That is to say, they should develop in themselves that great quality which
is known as the law-abidingness.' A just and law-abiding citizen, according
· to Aristotle, is one and the same. And since law-abidingness is a complete
virtue, in that sense, justice is also a· complete virute. Without justice and
friendship a life of common action is impossible to realise. Justice, therefore,
to Aristotle is the name of that great moral virtue an~ excellence of character
whi ch is so essential for dealing with social and public relation. This has
been called by Aristotle as complete justice.

3. Particular Justice
The particular justice of Aristotle is based on the conception of the state
as an asso_ciation of equals. As a member of this association of equals,
(1) he has his ·rights in relation to the whole. (2) He has also his rights as
against each. To provide him a system of rights in relation to the wholes·
i_s the 'business of the distributive justice. To protect these rights against the
infringement by others, is the work of the corrective justice.

4. Distributive Justice
Aristotle's distributive justice is the name of that principle of distribution
by which goods, services, honour and offices are distributed amo_ng ~he
citizens of the state. Since every citizen of the state makes a contnbution

l. ~illiam James, quoted by W. Durand, The Story of the Philosophy, 4th edition (1954),
p. 60.
2. Quoted by W. Durand.
158 I A History of Political Thought : Vol. I

to the realization of common life, it is necessary that he must get in

roportion to the amount and kind of contribution that he makes totlie"
life o t e s a . . ifferertt tnen ma e 1 erent ·contributions an ence they -
• put forward ·their different claims for share in the distributio~ of offices
and honours. "The rich claim because they have a great share m the land,
and land is the common element of the state. They also think that they
3
are generally more trustworthy in contracts" . . "T~_e free claim under the
same title as the noble ; for they are nearly akm. And the nobles are
citizens in a truer sense than the ignoble, sine~ good birth is -always valued
in a man's own home country".4 These persons of nobility have claims
because they spring from better ancestors who are likely to be better men,
because nobility is excellence of race.5 Virtue, too, ~ay be said to have a ·
claim, because justice has been acknowledged as a social virtue, and it
implies all others.6 Again, the many have their claim against the few, because
when taken collectively, and compared with the few, they are stronger, richer,
and better.7 Under these circumstances it becom'es very difficult to decide
as to which claims are to be recongnized and which to be ignored. Every
state fixes its own standard .of measuring the worth and due of a man. The
due of a man will depend on his contribution that he makes to the life of
the community for making it .happy and self-sufficient. But the question
arises as to how this contribution is· to be measured ? A democratic state
will suggest that offices, honours. and other rewards should be distributed
in equal shares to the e:itizens of the state. That is to say, distributive justice
in democracy insists on absolute eq'1ality. An oligarchic state will suggest
that wealth should be regarded as the right standard of measurement for
the distribution of offices, rewards and honours, while an Aristocratic state
insists on virtue. Distributive justice in these states insists respectively on
proportionate equality based on wealth and on virtue.
These are, thus, the various conflicting claims .to power. 'Now what is
jus~ of_ ri~ht i~ to be interpreted in the sense of ~hat is equal' ; and that
· which 1s nght m the sense of being equal is to be considered with reference
8
to advantage. of the state, and the common good of the citizens" . And
a citizen, accor~mg to Aristotle, "is one who shares in governing and being
governed: He d1ffers. under different forms of government, but in the best
sta~e he 1s on~ who 1s able and willing to be governed and to govern with_
a VIew to the hfe of virtue" ,9 Aristotle says that a virtuous state will discard

3. Politics, Book III, 13, p. 127.

4. Ibid., Book III, 13, p. 127.
5. .Ibid., Book III, 13, p. 127.
6. Ibid., Book III, 13, p. 127.
1. Ibid., Book III, 13, pp. 127-28.
8. Ibid., Book III, 13, p. 129.
9. Ibid., Book Ill, 13, p. 129.
 Aristotle's Theory of Justice [ 159

bo1h the democ~atic and oligarchic criteria and -will assign honours offices
an power_to vrrt~e. The ~ost virtuous, according to him, will have the
most pow~r · I~ this connect10n, he says that "justice will not be done to
the
"nf supenor,
· h" 1f •he .reckoned only as the equal of10 those
. who are so far
1. enor to 1m m .virtue and in political capaci·ty" . suc h a virtuous
· man
11
1s regarded
"l · 1 by
· Anstotle
· as. a 'god among men' · A nd hence he suggests
th. ath egis•at10n 1s necessanly concerned only with those who are equa1 m ·
b irth and m hpower, and that for 1
men of pre-eminent virtue there 1s
· no 1aw
2
- t ey are t emselves a law". The men of virtue ar.e so highly val d b
Aristotle. that he. considers
. it ridiculous to make laws for
. th em. , Butu~f
1 anyy (
one tn~s to do it, ,Ar~stotle says, they will probably retort what, in the fable
?f Antisthe~es, the hons said to the hares 'where are your claws' ? when
m the c~unctl of the beasts the latter began haranguing and claiming equality
1
for all.
But it does not mean in any way that offices and honours in the state
will be ~iven only to the fit and virtuous few only to the neglect of the
many. Smee the many, collectively, make a very important contribution to
the life of the state, they therefore should be awarded proportionately. The
~any are valuable because at the time of deliberating and electing
magistrates they give an account of their capacities. On certain very important
occasions, the demos have been seen exhibiting an extraordinary amount
of common sense. Aristolte says that since the wealthy, the virtuous and
the free-born make contributions in their own ways for enriching the life
of the community, therefore, every person will be rewarded with honours
and offices according to his .worth or desert. Aristotelian distributive justice
is, thus, the o~her name of proportionate equality. "It recognizes and
preserves distinction between the worthy and non-worthy. It counters equality
of the unequal and ensure·s that a man's rights, duties and rewards should
correspond to his merit and social contribution". Justice in the state
therefore is relative and not absolute. It is only in .an ideal state that justice
becomes ,absolute and is identified with absolute virtue.

5. Corrective Justice
The second branch of particular justice is corrective justice. We have already
seen that through the distributive justice a certain _syst_em of rights is c~eated
which establishes a sort of proportionate equality m the ~tate. It 1s t~e
business of the corrective justice to see to it that the proportiona_te eq_uab~~
so established may not be disturbed. Aristotle has illustrated his pomt of

10. Ibid., Book III, 13, p. 129

11. Ibid., Book III, 13, p. 129.
12. Ibid., Book III, 13, p. 130.
13. Ibid., Book III, 13, p. 130.
160 J A History of Political Thought : Vol. I

view in this connection by giving a very simple example. He says that a

buyer, who goes to the market and purchases a commodity froni a seller
but does not pay the price of the commodity, ~ist~~bs propor~ion~te
equality; because in doing so he denies _the s_eller_ his r~ght to receive the
cost of his commodity, and keeps something with him_ w~~h he ought not to
have kept. Corrective justice, in this way, prevents an individual from making
encroachment upon the rights of his fellows. "It relates to vo~untary and com.
~ercial transactions like hire, sale and furnishing of secunty etc.· <µid with
involuntary actions involving aggression on life, property, honour and freedom".
Thus the particular justice, of which the distributive justice and corrective justice
are the parts, may be defined in the light of the above discussion as "the
quality of an association of equals, which, on the one hand, awards to its
members, according to the amount of their contribution, the offices and other
rewards it has to bestow ; and, on the other hand, prevents encroachment by
one member upon the sphere of another. In a word, it both guarantees the
province of each individual against every other, and secures to each individual
his proper position as a part of the whole".
6. Aristotle's Justice versus Plato's Justice
Aristotle's ·and Plato;s justice, in fact, are complementary, each being strong·
where the other Was weak. They differ in many fundamental respects from
each other. Firstly~ Aristotelian justice lays .emphasis on a system of rights,
while Platonic justice atti:lches more importance to duties. One is a teacher
of rights but the other is a preacher of ·duties. The Aristotelian justice is
based, as it were, on the principle "every on~ should have his own". The
Platonic justice, on the contrary, is based on the principle ((every one should
do his own". The former, .therefore, is a system of rights but the latter is
a system of duties. Secondly, Aristotle's justice is legal in character. The
legal side of it is represented by his corrective justice, the Platonic justice,
on the other hand, is essentially moral and philosophical. It does not provide
a system to deal with the cht$h of interests. It does not issue forth in any
juridical organization. It is based on idealism and hence it is far removed
from realities. Thirdly, Aristotelian justice establi;hes eq~ality between dif-
ferent members of the state, while the Platonic justice establishes a hierarchy
of classes. ':ccording to this jusice, citizens ate divided into three classes,
each of which . perf?rms a particular set of functions. Every citizen is
bou nd to do ~is d~hes_ for which he is called as an · organ of the state.
Last_ly, the_ A~1stotehan Justice is based on a classification of complete and
particular-JUshce. Plato
. does not attempt any such c1ass1'fi1cat'10n. H'1s JU
· stice
rests on three
. different elements of the human sou1 - reason, spt'rit
an d appetite.
 AristotlP's Theory of Justice [ 161
But in. spite of this dif£e. rence, th ere 1s
· ground of common agreement
also. The aim. of both
. the philosophers
. is to find out a pnnc1p
· · 1e of capacity
·
gh
throu . which umty, harmony, vutue and happiness can .be established in
the society. . The. purpose of both is to give every citizen his due in
accordance with his capacity or nature. Thus, justice in ·the case of both
ca~ be regard':d as distributive in character. "In both cases, justice is
ultrmatel~ f~nchonal and teleological, and is not merely a legal, but also a
moral prmciple.

7. Aristotle's Justice versus Modern Justice

Both Aristotelian and modern justice lay emphasis on the rights and duties
of citizens. But the difference between the two is that the latter attempts
a classification of rights - social, political, economic, legal and fundamental,
and attaches a corresponding duty only in relation to that right. The former,
on the other hand, does not attempt · any such classification ; and the
conception of duties, which citizens are required to perform ·in the shape
of contributions, according to this justice, is absolutely of a different type.
Again, both- Aristotle's .and modern justice are founded on equality. But
the concept of equality-social, political and legal, which the modern justice
contemplates, was very much beyond the purview of Aristotle. Aristotle's
justice in the state establishes that proportionate equality, where a citizen
is rewarded according to his capacity or ability. The modern justice
endeavours to pay its citizens not only according to their capacity or ability
but also according to their needs. It is here that we rise to the higher and
truer conception of justice. Both Aristotle's and modern justice issue forth
in juridical organization. The aim of both is the realization of complete
justice. The former is realized when it is completely identified with virtue
and is realizable only in an ideal commonwealth, the latter is achieved in
its completeness when justice in all fields - social, political, economic and
legal is realized. According to the. modern concept, the ideal commonwealth
is realized only after the realization of this complete justice. Both the
conceptions of justice are thus legal and as well as ethical.