1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

3 1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………….
4 2. Objective ……………………………………………………………………….
5 3. Theoretical Principles of justice ………………………………………………..

6 3.1. Antological Principles …………………………………………………………

7 3.2. Anthropological principles……………………………………………………..

8 4. Ethical Principles ………………………………………………………………...

9 5. Aristotle’s definition of virtue ……………………………………………………

10 6. Methodology ……………………………………………………………………..

11 6.1. Textual Analysis ……………………………………………………………….

12 6.2. Comparative Analysis …………………………………………………………

13 6.3. Case Study ……………………………………………………………………

14 6.4. Interviews and Surveys ………………………………………………………

15 6.5. Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………..

16 7. Review of literature …………………………………………………………

17 7.1. Primary Literature …………………………………………………………..

18 7.2. Secondary Literature ………………………………………………………..

19 8. What is Justice? ……………………………………………………………..

20 8.1. Justice ………………………………………………………………….

21 8.1.1. General Justice ……………………………………………………………

22 8.1.2. Particular Justice ………………………………………………………….

23 8.1.2.1. Distributive Justice …………………………………………………….

24 8.1.2.2. Corrective Justice ………………………………………………………

25 8.1.2.3. Fair Exchange ……………………………………………………………………

1
1 8.2. The Role of Justice in Aristotle’s Ethics …………………………………….

2 8.2.1. Between Justice and Law – Aristotle’s Equality …………………………….

3 8.2.2. Justice between Aristotle’s other virtues …………………………………….

4 8.2.2.1. Justice between the moral and Intellectual Virtues …………………………

5 8.2.2.2. Justice as a Virtue without a Median ………………………………………

6 8.2.3. Justice between Individual and Social Ethics ………………………………..

7 9. Kinds and Says ……………………………………………………………

8 10. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….

9 11. Suggestions/Recommendations ……………………………………………….

10 12. References ………………………………………………………………….

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2
1

2 1. INTRODUCTION
3 Aristotle’s Theory of Justice is a very important concept in the prosperous field of philosophy
4 and political concepts. In his commendable work, “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle observes
5 very carefully and engross himself into the nature of justice and its importance in making a
6 society which is full of harmony and virtues and is famous for its positiveness. The theory
7 has been a key topic of careful analysis and debate among respected scholars for centuries,
8 and its relevant impact continues to be praised in various discussions in ethics, law and
9 politics. This dissertation report has its goal cleared that is to provide a detailed analysis of
10 Aristotle’s Theory of Justice, exploring its main components, important and influential
11 principles and views towards moral and political philosophy. By carefully observing
12 Aristotle’s arguments in historical and political context and considering their true importance,
13 the study aims to shower lightness on the major significance of his praiseworthy ideas for
14 understanding and talking about the issues of injustice faced by various in the modern
15 society. Most importantly our report focuses into Aristotle’s ability to distinguish between
16 distributive justice and the justice which depends entirely on its correctness, his concept of
17 virtue as the start of a just society, and his views on the importance of practical thinking in
18 order to serve justice and protect the law and order and maintain it. It will also show how
19 Aristotle’s theory compares and differentiates within other important theories which created
20 an impact including theory of justice such as put forth by Plato, Kant, Rawls, and significant
21 others. Our dissertation will not stop at this rather we will consider the practical implications
22 of Aristotle’s Theory of Justice for contemporary and ethical dilemmas, social injustice and
23 political discussions. By completely getting engrossed in Aristotle’s ideologies and their real
24 lives implications and problems, the study has a clear goal to add contribution to ongoing
25 discussions and debates on justice and moral ideologies in the modern world. Altogether, this
26 dissertation report looks forward to provide a knowledgeable and impactful analysis of
27 Aristotle’s Theory of Justice, highlighting its impactful findings and various inner and deep
28 insights. Thus, it provides a complete knowledge which helps us in pointing out social
29 injustice and political challenges in modern society. Aristotle's justice theory in the frame of
30 his theoretical basis of ontology, anthropology and ethics has not yet found its response by
31 historical, empirical and intellectual methods.

3
1 This article aims to find a response to reach a purpose. Aristotle is one of the greatest political
2 scholars who had addressed justice in details and his influence on the political philosophies in
3 the East and West is undeniable. Although he somehow attends in the political philosophy of
4 the philosophers like Tomas Acoins, John Lock, Hegel and Carl Marc, but the necessity of
5 investigating Aristotle's ideas for us is due to his deep influences on Muslim scholar' s
6 political thinking. We suppose Aristotle's justice theory is an inevitable consequence of his
7 ontology, anthropology and ethics in the ancient Greek custom. Therefore, in the present
8 study, we focus on this issue just as a key concept in political philosophy and man's virtue
9 factor and government linkages. We seek a basis for Aristotle's justice theory in his ontology,
10 anthropology and ethics. Then we investigate the historical, empirical and intellectual
11 methods used in this writing by stating methodology briefly. At the end, Aristotle's justice
12 theory and his division of justice will be determined.
13

14 2. OBJECTIVE

15  The aim for the report is to give a detailed analysis for Aristotle's Theory of justice.
16  We'll look upon the key features. Some of the features are distributive justice, fairness
17 concept, and corrective justice.
18  We'll study the history of Aristotle's study in which he develops the theory and look
19 over its applicability in society.
20  The aim for the report is to give a detailed analysis for Aristotle's Theory of justice.
21 We'll look upon the key features. Some of the features are distributive justice, fairness
22 concept, and corrective justice.
23  We'll study the history of Aristotle's study in which he develops the theory and look
24 over its applicability in society. The report looks forward to accessing the worth of the
25 practical connection of the theory to the modern systems, frameworks and political
26 institutions.
27  The report will look forward to seeing how Aristotle's Theory of justice can be
28 implemented in practical terms like the legal system, social institute and public
29 welfare.
30  It will reflect on how postulates of distributive justice can enhance policies and
31 programs, how ideas of corrective justice can lead the legal practices and conflict
32 resolution, and how it can shape ethical decision-making in various ways.

4
1  Overall, the report looks forward to serving a detailed analysis of Aristotle's Theory of
2 justice, focusing on its philosophy, practical implementation, and its importance in
3 leading the ethical and social challenges.
4  By the detailed examination of initial statements and researches. It looks forward to
5 contributing to a detailed understanding of justice as a basic need in societies and as a
6 key feature in political philosophy.

8
9 Source: - blog.ipleaders.in

10 Figure 1.0 The above picture shows a gavel which is used by a judge during
11 judgement and a book of constitution which holds all the laws and rules withing a
12 society or region or country. This picture tries to show that the world or each country
13 has its own justice system. Each country has its own rules and laws to achieve justice
14 in various cases.

15

16 3. THEORITICAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE

17 3.1. Antological Principles:

18 Aristotle invented natural general theory and discovered quadruple causes. The result of this
19 theory is that any entity is a natural whole which is composed of substance and form
20 (potential and action). Format is the ultimate of perfection to which the substance has the
21 capability. And individual from a natural kind explores his form. This Sirot has an origin and
22 destination like other movements. Its origin is the subjective cause and its destination is its
23 ultimate cause. The primary cause is "ultimate". To evaluate anything, we refer to its ultimate,
24 that is to ask why it has been made? The ultimate of a thing can be determined by empirical
25 observations but this observation shouldn't be limited to a level or step on a point, rather it
26 should be contained in its full period of creation and annihilation.

5
1 This way of understanding a phenomenon is that what will happen and what's its ultimate.
2 The second method to understand an entity is its "nominal" cause. Each entity has a visible
3 structure which shows the class or category to which that entity belongs. When we categorize
4 it based on legislation, people’s participation and the way a system is governed (e.g
5 democracy, dictatorship), in fact we are going to recognize that system in terms of the
6 nominal cause. In Aristotle's view, nominal cause characterizes the essence of an entity. The
7 query of the "cause" of a phenomenon is the query of its "subjective" cause, that is by which
8 process a phenomenon has moved towards a particular ultimate in a special form. Subjective
9 cause preceded nominal and ultimate causes. Finally, to understand an entity, another level of
10 ontology remains. This level relates to this question that "from which" it has been created?
11 This question is related to the "material" cause of phenomenon.

12 At the same time, the lawful and valuing system of the society also is shaped by classes
13 which constitute that society. In a government, which is mainly formed by workers and pooed
14 or a government under the control of predominates, it is impossible to create a healthy
15 system. To have a healthy system, there should be an equilibrium in the society 's classes. All
16 phenomena are "beings". Being is the realization of a potential exists in the entities. When we
17 respond four questions including "what" (subjective cause), "why" (ultimate cause),"how "
18 (nominal cause) and "from what" (material cause) of an entity, we can understand that
19 phenomenon accurately. Aristotle believes that human being is a creature whose nature drags
20 him to the social life, that is man wants to be civilized naturally. He also claimed that
21 government is a production of nature and human being is social naturally. Human
22 communities require governments to supply their needs and to reach their objectives. In
23 Aristotle's view, without government, it is impossible to achieve happiness which is the
24 ultimate of its formation.

25

26 3.2. Anthropological principles:

27 The natural general model is not only one of the Aristotle's metaphysical principles in the
28 political philosophy, but also in anthropology, it opens the blind spots of Plato's duality. The
29 individual in the Aristotle's theory is the reality within his ego. "Monstrosity" and "form"
30 explain the nature of "kind" and "individual" except God, within each personate, these two
31 principles exist, "form" causes objects classifications and "monstrosity" causes the formation
32 of material objects. In Aristotle's view, truth is the interpretation of potential and background

6
1 capability. An entity's transformation from an existed state to an actual one is processed by a
2 single movement. According to Aristotle, body is a natural object which has talent to live and
3 breathe it likened the form-origin of life. Breath is body's accomplishment and it is
4 inseparable from body. Breath is the static stimulus and ultimate of the body. So, that body is
5 assigned to an indivisible unit ego not to a practical part of it. Yet, the discrepancy in actions

7 taken place by human being, it informs his various forces among them, verbal strength is
8 practically important for Aristotle and it is considered to be a criterion for ego' s divisions. In
9 Aristotelian anthropology, people under the ruling of a government can't reach perfection
10 equally, it means virtue efforts. In a classified aspect Aristotle considers grandees,
11 professionals, slaves and warriors as the body of this adult human; he considers powerful
12 troops, daemon leaders and rulers as his soul; politics which commits to the public affair
13 measures and order isn't public's duty, rather a few elites are responsible for it who are called
14 politicians, but ethics and its rules do not belong to a particular group.

15 All the commons and specialties feel moral duty. Aristotle believes that the only requirement
16 to which man needs to reach a ruling position is the superiority in terms of virtue. Ethics and
17 politics are based on orders which come from the virtuous man's consciences who have made
18 the intellectual as their guide and leader. As these orders result from logical research,
19 interaction and measurement of the great person's ideas, they vary in different circumstances
20 alternatively. So, the result of action has no absolute or intrinsic value, rather truth is partial.
21 If this order be clear in its position, it gains a new weight and credit scientifically.

22

23

24 4. Ethical principles:

25 Aristotle tries to find out an empirical and scientific way to solve ethical problems. According
26 to Aristotle, ethics or individual politics is collective (Aristotle, 1979). Ethics and politics
27 both are from practical wisdom branches and explore man's Happiness. Thus, drawing a firm
28 boundary between ethics and politics is impossible. Each is assigned to a particular scope.
29 Also, these two elements can't contradict each other.

7
1 Happiness is the central concept in Aristotle's ethics. He seeks a desire in ethics which is
2 desirable inherently, but not being desirable because of any other thing. In other words,
3 Aristotle seeks "supreme good" which is just happiness.

7 5. Aristotle defines virtue as follow:

8 Virtue is a situation and state (good or bad) man chooses against actions and reactions. It
9 means that virtue is a state or monarch which causes man and his actions to be good. This
10 kind of feature occurs when man acts and reacts moderately. Virtue is in moderation: "moral
11 virtue means that in any action a moderate limit is drawn between two parties. In other words,
12 moderation or depletion and abundance in actions is against wisdom and it is rascality. Thus,
13 both courage and cowardice are rascality. At the middle of them is bravery which is virtue.
14 Binding, dictatorship, humour and contention are rascality, our virtue is among them which is
15 agreement and sympathy. Buffoonery and bitterness is going to extremes. The moderate trend
16 is delicacy and cheery" (Forgi, 1938). Each virtue is at the middle of going to extremes and it
17 is rascality in its position. Aristotle believes that good means Happiness and Happiness is
18 virtuous. Although from Aristotle's point of view, virtue is the average in terms of nature, it is
19 an ultimate in terms of perfection. Also, it is obvious that any interplay doesn't accept the
20 average. Since it turns true in actions like betrayal, indecency, envy, adultery, burglary, and
21 manslaughter. Both achieving an average or acquiring virtue is difficult (Zanjani).

22

8
1

2 SOURCE: - www.slideserve.com

3 Figure 2.0 demonstrates the above context.

5 6. METHODOLOGY

6 "Method" is a trend or process which deals with techniques and tools applied during research
7 and also to test or evaluate theory. "Method" doesn't mean applying characterized instructions
8 orderly. "Method" is not a simple set of techniques which should be applied just as they are,
9 "Method" means subjective general insight that in any research, it should be invented again.
10 The term "Method" points to both the "way" and the rules or tools to reach it.

11 The adopted or applied methods in politics consists of: 1) philosophical, 2) observational ,3)
12 empirical, 4) comparative, 5) historical. Since philosophy is one of the certainty sciences, so a
13 method it uses should also be certain too. The useful "intellectual" method has such a benefit.
14 By intellectual method, we mean using logic; logic is an analogy which has been composed
15 of certain preliminaries and it gives certain result essentially. The methodology for this
16 dissertation will involve a multiple faceted analysis that concatenate both theoretical and
17 practical analysis. The required analysis will be done with the help of combining both
18 primary and secondary sources, with a concentration on studying the Aristotle’s text origins
19 as well as scholarly knowledge and critiques of his justice theory. Down below are some of
20 the steps which should be undertaken to gain search objectives:

9
1 A detailed review of already existing literature on Aristotle’s theory of Justice, ethics in terms
2 of virtue and similar topics will be observed to establish a sturdy theoretical foundation for
3 the required study. This including giving reviews to the main and important texts by Aristotle,
4 as well as secondary sources of such scholars who have examined and interpreted his
5 excellent work.

6 6.1. Textual Analysis

7 This analysis of Aristotle’s most important works including the Nicomachean Ethics and the
8 politics, will be considered in order to identify important concepts, arguments and principles
9 related to Justice. This analysis brings out the examining ability of Aristotle’s definition to
10 justice. This particular analysis also includes observing his definition if justice, his approach
11 on various aspects of justice and his such broad ethical framework

12 6.2 Comparative analysis

13 The research will also include a proper comparison of analysis of Aristotle’s theory of justice
14 with the view point of other philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, John Rawls and the
15 Martha Nussbaum. The comparative approach will help us to exactly focus on similarities
16 and differences in their outlooks regarding justice as well as provide inner sights into how

17 this theory has influenced so many individuals.

19 6.3. Case studies

20 This dissertation includes required case studies to illustrate and properly shoe Aristotle’s
21 theory of justice which can be applied in practical contexts. Such case studies may include
22 analyzation of particular legal cases, division policies or ethical dilemmas to show the
23 relevance and implications of Aristotle’s ideas in modern society.

25

26 6.4. Interviews and surveys

27 If impactful interviews including in philosophy, ethics, law or such related fields may be
28 conducted to gather more information in Aristotle’s theory of justice and its practical
29 importance while surveys are equally important as they are required to collect important

10
1 information on the public views regarding justice and equality.

4 6.5. Data Analysis

5 The data and facts collected through textual analysis, comparative analysis, case studies and
6 various interviews and surveys will be accordingly analysed in a particular system to find
7 themes, patters, designs and implications related to Aristotle’s theory of justice. This analysis
8 will be the basis foundation for drawing required conclusions and making recommendations
9 in the dissertation.

10 Overall, this methodology has clear and defined goals to provide a comprehensive
11 examination of Aristotle’s theory of justice, introducing various types of methods used in
12 research in order to explore its theoretical descriptions and practical applications. By
13 combination of philosophical principles and real-world examples the research looks forward
14 to contribution to deeper understanding of justice as a fundamental right and concept and its
15 importance in complex social issues.

16

17 7. Review of literature

18 7.1. Primary literature

19 Primary Literature

20 Aristoteles: Nikomachische Ethik. Translated and published by Gernot Krapinger.

21 Stuttgart2017 (Reclam Verlag).

22 7.2. Secondary Literature

23 Beever, A. (2004) ‘Aristotle on equity, law and justice.’, Legal theory., 10 (1). pp. 33-50.

24 Chroust, Anton-Hermann & Osborn David L.: Aristotle’s Conception of Justice, 17 Notre
25 Dame L. Rev. 129 (1942).

26 Curzer, Howard J.: Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, Vol. 28, No. 3
27 (September1995), pp. 207-238.

11
1 Guest II, James W.: Justice as Lawfulness and Equity as a Virtue in Aristotle’s Nicomachean
2 Ethics. In: The Review of Politics 79 (2017), 1–22.

3 Dudenredaktion (Hrsg.). (o.J.).Vergeltung. Duden online. Abgerufen von:

4 https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Vergeltung, letzter Abruf.

5 HUANG, Xianzhong: Justice as a virtue: An analysis of Aristotle’s virtue of justice. In:

6 Frontiers of Philosophy in china, April 2007, Vol. 2, No. 2 (April 2007), pp. 265-279

7 Hughes, Gerard J.: The Routledge Guidebook to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. London und
8 New York 20132.

9 Höffe, Otfried: Gerechtigkeit. Eine philosophische Einführung, München 2001.

10 Knoll, Manuel: Die distributive Gerechtigkeit bei Platon und Aristoteles. In: Zeitschrift für
11 Politik, März 2010, Neue Folge, Vol. 57, No. 1 (März 2010), pp. 3- 30

12 Trude, P. (2016). B. Das allgemeine Wesen der Gerechtigkeit als Tugend und ihre hieraus
13 folgende Begründung und inhaltliche Bestimmung aus der Ethik”. In: Der Begriff der
14 Gerechtigkeit in der aristotelischen Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie. Berlin, Boston: De
15 Gruyter. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111531755-006

16 Winthrop, Delba: Aristotle and Theories of Justice. In: The American Political Science
17 Review, Vol. 72, No. 4 (Dec., 1978), pp. 1201-1216.

18 Young, Charles M.: Aristotle on Justice. In: The Southern Journal of Philosophy (1988) Vol.
19 XXVII, Supplement.

20

21

22 Fig: - 3.0 Source: - www.worksheetsplanet.com

12
1

2 Figure 3.0 demonstrates the following context.

4 8. What's justice? Societies have dealt with this question for periods. It's thus not surprising
5 that Aristotle also allowed

6 about this and tried in several of his workshop to define justice, or rather, the different types
7 of justice, and to find a way how societies as a whole and the existent in specific situations
8 should deal with these different types of justice. Aristotle’s workshop, and among them his
9 propositions on justice, were again controversially bandied over the glories and are still a
10 veritably common content in gospel moment, especially on the base of the ongoing
11 discussion about John Rawls “ A proposition of Justice ”( 1971), which refers, among other
12 effects, to rudiments of the representation of justice from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.
13 This composition deals with the disquisition of justice within the Nicomachean Ethics. First
14 of all, what Aristotle understands by justice and what types of justice he differentiates will be
15 presented before a near look at the peculiarity of justice in Aristotle’s work will be taken.
16 Special attention should be paid to the position of justice within the Nicomachean ethics.
17 Large corridor of Aristotle’s ethics are grounded on the Aristotelian merits, and Aristotle’s
18 conception of justice falls under this order of merits. How exactly Aristotle’s conception of
19 virtue can be defined will be bandied in further detail latterly. For the time being, it's only
20 important to note that Aristotelian justice occupies a special position within these merits for
21 several reasons and that this point, among others, should be examined in detail in the
22 alternate part of this work. still, other tricks of Aristotelian justice will also be bandied,
23 including both the individual and socio-ethical aspects of the same, as well as the position of
24 Aristotelian justice between justice and law, illustrated by means of Aristotelian equivalency.
25 Before beginning we should compactly point out a peculiarity of the Nicomachean ethics
26 itself. What's now considered to be presumably one of the most influential workshop of
27 Aristotle was more a “ work in progress ” than a completely developed ethic. This applies
28 both to the work as a whole and to the fifth book of the Nicomachean Ethics, which deals
29 with justice. As a result, some aspects may appear less detailed than others, and some
30 desirable motifs may not be addressed at all. Indeed if the work leaves commodity to be
31 asked in this sense, it's precisely because of this that it initiates discussion and contributes to
32 the immense influence of the Nicomachean Ethics on philosophical debate to this date.

13
1

3 Source: - www.youtube.com

4 Fig: - 4.0

5 Fig-4.0 The below figure shows a picture of statue of Aristotle in the right side, and in the left
6 side of the figure shows an eyeless woman with a balance in hand which is a symbol of
7 justice showing balance and equivalency. Aristotle was an ancient Greek champion and
8 polymath. His jottings cover a broad range of subjects. This figure demonstrates the name
9 and motive of Aristotle as figure formerly has a picture of symbol of justice, showing
10 aristotle’s motive of justice. The proposition shows the thinking and thesis of Aristotle
11 towards justice. He completely demonstrates the same in his book. We'll further study about
12 his proposition and examine its crucial points. Through this discussion report we will get
13 fulfilled with the crucial features.

14

15

16 8.1. JUSTICE

17 As mentioned compactly in the preface, justice is one of the most topical issues in the history
18 of gospel. This is easy to understand if you ask yourself what justice actually is. Does justice
19 equate with the law? What's right and what's wrong? Who decides about it? Can one
20 principally act just or unjust and which external – or maybe also internal – circumstances
21 impact whether an action is just or unjust? Aristotle deals with these and other questions in
22 the fifth book of his Nicomachean Ethics, a work named after one of the sons of Aristotle,
23 which deals with “ political wisdom ”, as Aristotle calls ethics, as a whole. In this chapter, the

14
1 two main types of justice distinguished by Aristotle, the general and the particular justice,
2 will be compactly presented before thesub-categories of the ultimate are bandied in further
3 detail. Aristotle stated justice in two general and strict meaning. Justice in general sense
4 consists of respect rules and equivalency of citizens. Justice in strict sense is divided into two
5 corrective and distributive types Justice in strict sense and fair action conforms to
6 it( distributive justice) influences distribution of honour, plutocrat and other effects among
7 citizens who have shares in political system of the society. Another type of this
8 justice( corrective justice) plays a correcting part in deals and connections among people in
9 the society. This kind of justice is also of two types; as some deals are freely and some are
10 not. The relationship between justice and equivalency is an important debate by Aristotle
11 about distributive justice. All believe that justice in distribution should be grounded on merit,
12 so justice is to follow proportionality, which treats equivalence inversely and inequalities
13 inversely and gifts or installations are distributed commensurable to the person's equivalence
14 or inequalities. From Aristotle's view also in corrective justice the equivalency element exists
15 except that in distributive justice geometric fitness arises but in deals numerical fitness
16 (Aristotle, 1999). For case, when someone damages the other and according to the corrective
17 justice the judge orders requital, there's no difference what are the features and positions of
18 both parties; then the quantum of damage should be retaliated exactly. From Aristotle's
19 perspective, as every virtue is in the middle of two devilishness, one is redundant and the
20 other is destruction. In all cases of justice (particular), we're facing a miracle called average
21 observance. Indeed, a fair person has followed the middle of two devilishness directly.
22 Aristotle defines fortune as pride' s sweats acclimated to the" virtue" and justice is at the
23 center of the merits which negotiate mortal fortune. He writes Justice includes all merits and
24 in the strict sense, it's perfect virtue, because justice requires the operation of all merits. In
25 this regard, Justice is perfect virtue which man can negotiate not only within oneself but also
26 in his dispatches. At first, he claimed that by justice people mean a queen who causes man
27 acquires gift to realize fair conduct and acts justly; Yet justice and injustice have a lot of
28 meanings. Justice in general sense( general justice) against justice in strict sense( particular
29 justice) points to some of these meanings. Justice in general sense by Aristotle, who
30 interpreted it as the whole virtue, means respect laws and follow them. So, all conduct
31 acclimated to law are just in general term. Aristotle denotes general virtue of justice a perfect
32 virtue includes all merits prognosticated as" mama of merits". Because justice is to apply all
33 merits. In addition, a person with this point both can apply his virtue to himself and also to
34 his cousins, to the extent that every action by that person benefits public directly. therefore,

15
1 among all merits, Justice is the only one which is not good for others, so justice implies social
2 point in which all merits are diffused. This occurs when particular justice( Justice in sale
3 distributions) is just a part of moral virtue and it's simply a particular point. According to
4 Aristotle the ruling laws, adjudicators and governors are law's retainers. While he criticizes
5 public reign in a particular manner adopts the foundation of sovereignty and preferences in
6 collaborative judgment over particular one obviously. Hence, it can be said that in Aristotle's
7 political studies justice in general sense means righteous treatment of people in society and
8 this treatment is determined by government's law. In Aristotelian desirable reign, this law has
9 been enacted in order to supply supreme good that's the government's happiness has been
10 established by governors who retain practical wisdom virtue. Law is a wisdom free of
11 fantasies to train people in society which requires them to the righteous gest and enjoin them
12 from devilishness’s. In such a reign, a good citizen just possesses that merits of a good man.
13 He possesses justice virtue and follows equity to gain social advantage. In this general term,
14 Justice is the ultimate of the government and the order of political society and a just citizen
15 retain all merits out correctly. He can follow merits not only in his loneliness but also in
16 political community towards others. That's justice is the most perfect virtue because perfect
17 virtue is enforced within it. Ofcourse Aristotle knows that far and wide and by all case, laws
18 haven't been regulated to give people's fortunes and society's Happiness. So, it's probable that
19 laws are being enacted to profit some special groups or royalties. therefore, if any negligence
20 has been passed in regulation, it does not yield good results. rather of the possibility of
21 negligence in legislation, he defines justice in general sense as esteeming laws and apply
22 them. He considers it as the noblest virtue, this indicates the presumption that in regulating
23 laws any negligence has not been passed and it has been enacted points at furnishing fortunes
24 of people and society where all virtuousness is visible in it; since he does not consider justice
25 in this regard as a part of moral virtue rather he called it" all the merits". After examination of
26 justice in general sense, Aristotle investigates particular justice. At first, he translates
27 particular justice into" justly" differing his description of general justice as" legal"; he
28 describes justly or fairly" proportionally equal"( World profitable journal, 2014). Justice in
29 general sense that's to observe laws is inseparable; but justice in strict sense that's" pluralistic"
30 with numerous different displays of justice virtue, is separable. Particular justice and
31 particular injustice, though they illustrate adhering the law and ignoring law independently,
32 but they aren't just like that and they've a part and the whole relationship. Demarcation and
33 equivalency negligence are exemplifications of offence and injustice in general sense
34 acknowledges that; but any offence can not be interpreted as the demarcation and equivalency

16
1 negligence. So, there are multitudinous exemplifications of justice and injustice, which shape
2 justice and injustice in particular meaning. Surely all of them aren't out of the two terms
3 general justice and general injustice. Aristotle divides justice in the strict sense into two
4 corrective and distributive types, nonsupervisory or reforming types. also he divides
5 corrective justice into two.

6 8.1.1. GENERAL JUSTICE

7 Aristotle introduces the fifth book of the Nicomachean Ethics by pointing out the nebulosity
8 of the conception of justice. Because the different “ meanings are close together, it( the
9 nebulosity) escapes one further fluently and isn't so egregious as in the case of effects that are
10 far piecemeal ”, obviously pertaining to the different types of justice, mentioned
11 preliminarily, Aristotle assumes that the substance of a thing can frequently be defined by
12 determining its contrary, and this is also the case with justice. therefore, he doesn't begin by
13 defining justice, but injustice, or the unjust man, who, according to Aristotle, “ violates the
14 laws, and likewise who wants to have further and is therefore against equivalency; ”(ibid., 30
15 ff.). From this it follows that justice, or the just man, embodies the exact contrary “ he who
16 respects the laws and equivalency ” is just( ibid.). therefore, it seems that Aristotle equates
17 justice with law, which could be justified by the fact that laws are generally acquainted
18 towards the common good and therefore righteous and can correspond to justice as virtue.
19 With the term virtue, Aristotle relates general justice to the other merits mentioned in the
20 Nicomachean Ethics, on which utmost of the work is grounded in the first place. In part, the
21 English- language literature also speaks of “ Virtue Ethics ”. Aristotle indeed goes so far as to
22 equate justice with virtue as a whole, or with righteous geste

23 per se, and not just as a part of the same. Trude introduces the alternate chapter of his work
24 on the Aristotelian conception of justice with the statement that virtue, and therefore justice,
25 is the subject of Nicomachean ethics. This can mean both that justice is the subject of this
26 work as one among numerous merits, and that justice is to be equated with virtue as a whole,
27 as was formerly the case with Huang. It's important to note then that the German word “
28 Tugend ”, used by Huang, doesn't inescapably correspond to the Greek term “ arete ”, used by
29 Aristotle. According to Huang, the restatement “ good function ” is more applicable then,
30 since the German word Tugend or its English fellow virtue, also carries moral connotations,
31 which wasn't firstly the case for Aristotle. This indispensable restatement also clarifies
32 Aristotle’s realistic view of justice. For reasons of durability with the English- and German-

17
1 language literature, still, the term virtue will continue to be used in this thesis. Justice as such
2 a virtue will be bandied in further detail in chapter three. At this point, it should only be
3 refocused out that the nebulosity of the Aristotelian conception of justice doesn't stop at the
4 division into general and particular justice, but also and especially comes into play in the
5 understanding of justice as a virtue. For now, let us continue to look at the description of the
6 Aristotelian conception of justice. According to Hughes, a just person in the sense of
7 Aristotle’s schoolteacher Plato can be equated with a “ good ” person. This kind of person is
8 defined as “ has a balanced set of solicitations and aggressive instincts, all of which are
9 controlled and shaped by reason ” and further with the statement that “ The good person
10 requires temperance and courage – the two cardinal merits which include all the others – and
11 both of these under the guidance of reason. It's this harmonious relationship in the soul that
12 constitutes the third cardinal virtue, justice. Justice in Plato, also, is a result of the relationship
13 of temperance and courage, corresponding Aristotle’s general justice, as the ultimate also
14 defines a just person by the possession of the merits “ temperance, courage and justice ”.
15 Beever confirms that Aristotle equates the just person with the good person. Not pertaining to
16 the existent, general justice is also roughly to be equated with the law, although Hughes
17 rightly notes that this is a rather “ auspicious ”, if not naïve, point of view. The purpose of
18 justice as a whole or in general, he argues, is the satisfaction or happiness of the people and
19 the state as a whole, although, of course, the extent to which the colorful types of justice and
20 the law in particular match this purpose remains questionable. Then it's important to
21 emphasize that it isn't sufficient simply to act justly “ one has to wish to act correctly. The
22 word ‘ wish ’ then refers to the intention which the just person must have They must be acting
23 because it's the right thing to do. therefore, the intention of the person acting plays as great a
24 part as the action itself. Unfortunately, Aristotle’s donation to general justice falls fairly short
25 in comparison to particular justice, to which we will turn in the coming chapter. The main
26 difference between these two types of justice, according to Curzer, who seems to agree for
27 the utmost part with Hughes and Winthrop’s statements above, lies in the following “ Irwin
28 distinguishes general and particular justice by maintaining that general justice ‘ aims at the
29 common good of the political community... while particular justice insists on proper respect
30 for particular people in the fair allocation of external goods ”. still, it must be compactly
31 mentioned that Curzer unnaturally contradicts Irwin’s statements and doesn't assume that
32 general justice can be equated with law. The relationship between law and justice in the
33 Nicomachean Ethics will be bandied in further detail in the third chapter of this thesis. For

18
1 the time being, we will concentrate on the description of particular justice and its subtypes
2 according to Aristotle.

4 8.1.2. PARTICULAR JUSTICE

5 Interestingly, Aristotle is considered the adventurer of particular justice( s) ” ‘ While general

6 justice is familiar to the Greeks, the idea of justice as a virtue among other merits, that of a
7 particular justice, was presumably discovered by Aristotle.' ”. Before Aristotle, also, the
8 understanding of justice in terms of general justice seems to have prevailed, indeed though
9 considerations in the direction of a more discerned justice were formerly present in Aristotle’s
10 schoolteacher Plato, who really inspired the former in numerous felicitations, as well as in the
11 Pythagoreans. Knoll indeed goes so far as to claim that Plato formerly knew two of the
12 particular judges. According to Aristotle, all types of particular justice have in common that
13 they deal with people who try to appropriate further than they're entitled to. Hughes also
14 gives the etymology of the word used by Aristotle at this point for better understanding “ His
15 word for this is pleonexia, and the person who's characterized by this is a pleonektēs. The
16 derivate of both these words is simply from the two words for ‘ more ’ and ‘ have ’; the
17 pleonektēs is stylish described in English as ‘ grasping ’ – or maybe as ‘ selfish ’. ”( Hughes
18 2013,p. 94). Particular justice therefore possesses “ some kind of illegal inequality, ” in
19 discrepancy to general justice, in which inequality or the provocation to enrich oneself play
20 no part.

21

22 Source: - www.edurev.com

19
1 Figure 5.0 demonstrates the following context-

3 8.1.2.1 DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

4 According to Winthrop, distributive justice provides the principles according to which “

5 goods and honours in a political community ” are distributed fairly(cf. Winthrop 1987,p.
6 1204). Knoll specifies, “ If services, honours, and public finances, or more generally rights
7 and duties, are distributed to citizens in the polis, also distributive justice applies. ” According
8 to Hughes, the main issue then's “ the distribution by the state of prices, or honours, or
9 burdens, maybe, similar as those of military service ”. In the same place, he explains what
10 must be present in a violation of distributive justice “ two persons, and two quantities of some
11 good or another. ”. therefore, it's a matter of the just distribution of both material and abstract
12 “ goods, ”e.g., political or social titles of honour and services, between two persons or parties,
13 though Aristotle may have been allowing then of the abstract rather than the material goods.
14 In the case of indifferent distribution, these goods are distributed “ in proportion to what they(
15 the persons in question) earn ”. The word “ earn ” is particularly controversial then, since
16 Aristotle leaves it open who exactly deserves what, and the fact that different people will
17 have different opinions on this depends not least on the social background of the person in
18 question. Knoll distinguishes distributive justice from compensatory justice, which will be
19 examined in the coming chapter, as Chroust and Osborn did, by the object of the separate
20 justice. In the ultimate, “ contractual justice, the just exchange of goods and the compensation
21 of injustice ” are in the “ centre ”, in the former, “ the allocation of services in the political
22 community as well as the recognition that can be attained through their exercise ”. Due to its
23 focus on the political sphere, Knoll also refers to this subtype of particular justice as political
24 justice. Distributive Justice is an important aspect of Aristotle’s proposition of justice, which
25 emphasises the equal distribution of goods, coffers and openings within a society grounded
26 on graces and conditions. In Aristotle’s ethical gospel a distributive justice is one of the most
27 important rudiments in achieving a harmonious society which is full of integrity where every
28 existent has a right and determination to flourish and complete their eventuality. Aristotle
29 explosively argues that distributive justice involves gladdening giving each and every existent
30 their due according to their merit and worth. This means that the individualities should admit
31 their meritorious benefits and burdens in constant proportion to their benefactions, capacities,
32 and conditions. Distributive Justice has a easily defined thing which is to insure that each and

20
1 every one the in society receives what they truly earn and are entitled to bear on their
2 individual situations and gift. According to Aristotle’s proposition of justice, distributive
3 justice is inversely important in order to maintain social order and promoting the good. By
4 distributing goods and coffers using fair and indifferent means distributive justice really helps
5 us to help inordinate fights, resentment, and las lack of rates within a community. It
6 encourages a sense of solidarity, aspects of working together and introductory collective
7 respect among individualities, leading to a more harmonious and righteous society which will
8 promote peace and goodwill. In Aristotle's view, distributive justice veritably importantly
9 needs a balance between equivalency and merit. While distributive justice looks forward to
10 promote fairness and equivalency by icing every existent that they will truly achieve what
11 they really earn, it also recognises that every existent have different capacities, bents, and
12 benefactions to society. thus, distributive justice takes into account every individual merit and
13 achievement when collecting prices and coffers. Aristotle also wrote about the significance of
14 proportionality in distributive justice. He explosively argues that the distribution of goods
15 should be commensurable to the existent's merit or worth, taking into consideration factors
16 similar as trouble, gift, and donation to the common good. This principle of proportionality
17 easily ensures that the distribution of goods is being rehearsed in veritably fair and just
18 manner reflecting the essential value and respect and significance of each and every existent
19 in society. also, Aristotle actually believed that distributive justice is linked to the conception
20 of virtue and excellence nearly. In a still society, individualities are encouraged enough to
21 acclimatize spoons of integrity similar as liberality, fairness, and compassion in their relations
22 with others and in their hearts. Distributive justice laboriously encourages people to act
23 innocently by considering the requirements and well- being of other existent while making
24 opinions about the distribution of goods and coffers. Overall, Aristotle's proposition of
25 distributive justice highlights the significance of fairness, equivalency, and proportionality in
26 creation of society which is righteous and intertwined fine with harmony. By promoting the
27 fair distribution of goods grounded on merit and conditions, distributive justice contributes to
28 the flourishing and goodwill of individualities and the common good will of the whole
29 community. It serves as a proper foundational principle for decision making in a veritably
30 ethical way pf decision timber and social organisation which duly guides each and every
31 individual towards a more lively and harmonious life which is full of integrity.

32

33 8.1.2.2 CORRECTIVE JUSTICE

21
1 In discrepancy to distributive justice, according to Winthrop, compensatory justice isn't about
2 goods or about awards per se, but rather about correcting unjust or unstable contracts, which
3 may have goods as their object, in a court flaw. However, say, the gains of a sale by virtue of
4 a preliminarily made contract, If constricting parties admit an unstable share of. For this
5 reason, compensatory justice is also called “ corrective justice ” in English. Hughes sees
6 compensatory justice in a analogous way to Winthrop, which is made clear by the term “
7 compensation ” he uses to describe this species of particular justice. He describes the original
8 situation in which this justice is applied as one in which someone has been harmed by
9 another. It's now a question of the damage caused to the former being corrected by the
10 ultimate. In this case, still, it may be that the damage caused can not be determined exactly, or
11 at least not by both parties in agreement. For this reason, a middleman, a judge, is called in to
12 help find applicable compensation for the injured party. In discrepancy to distributive justice,
13 in which – as we've formerly seen – numerous different factors play a part, the circumstances
14 of the separate person or his or her character traits don't ply any particular influence on the
15 manner of compensation. According to Knoll, “ compensatory justice regulates voluntary and
16 involuntary private intercourse between citizens ”( Knoll 2010,p. 6). It therefore stands in
17 discrepancy to the further politically acquainted distributive justice. Balancing justice can be
18 further divided into “ exchange justice ” and “ judging or chastising justice ”. According to
19 Knoll, corrective justice is therefore simply a species of compensatory justice, unlike that
20 presented by Winthrop. Corrective justice is also a veritably important point of Aristotle's
21 proposition of justice. It completely focuses on correcting wrongs and restoring balance in
22 bonds and relations within the society. working controversies, compensation for damages,
23 reviving equivalency by the help of legal conduct and corrections are the crucial points of
24 Aristotle's proposition of justice. Aristotle differentiates the two types of justice. The
25 distributive and corrective justice. The corrective justice has a thing to resolve shafts and
26 revive balance and Equality. It also aims to uphold the rule of law. It can be achieved by
27 correcting wrongs and individualities are held responsible for their work. According to
28 Aristotle's proposition of justice, corrective justice is dependent on the principle of
29 proportionality. It requires that the discipline and compensation of the shamefaced or the
30 victim should be commensurable with the detriment that happed. This will insure that the
31 action taken against injustice is fair, correct and reasonable. It should be done by taking in
32 study about nature and detriment caused by the offence and the final circumstances caused.
33 Aristotle thinks that this type of justice is necessary for perfecting social order and harmony.
34 It can be done by resolving controversies and working conflicts. And he thinks that it should

22
1 be done in just and equal mores. By giving a proper part and model for the conduct taken
2 against wrong and enforcing equivalency, it also helps in avoiding farther detriment that can
3 be caused. The unborn crimes or offences can also be avoided and it can make trust and
4 cooperation amongst the society. According to Aristotle's proposition of justice, corrective
5 justice includes three crucial rudiments. 1. retaliation 2. Compensation 3. Reconciliation.
6 retaliation includes the discipline given to the shamefaced for his/ her conduct and offense in
7 a way that can easily reflect the equality of the offence/ detriment caused and the discipline.
8 Compensation needs the victim to be compensated for their loss or injuries. It ensures that
9 they can recapture everything they lost and can return to their original state to the most
10 extent. Reconciliation has a thing to rebuild the broken connections and hoist mercy and heal
11 the parties involved in a disagreement. Aristotle also demonstrated the significance of the
12 legal system in enforcing corrective justice. He states that rules and institutions have an
13 important part in making sure that the controversies and offenses are cleared fairly and
14 inversely, without any favour to a single party. The legal system gives a model for resolving
15 offence or disagreement. It detects the position of offense and detriment that happens. It
16 determines between guilt and innocence. It also imposes correct rules and remedies for
17 resolving the controversies and chastising the shamefaced. Aristotle states that corrective
18 justice is nearly related to the conception of virtue and moral character. He says that everyone
19 should accept merits like fairness, polite geste in contact with others, and integrity. Overall,
20 Aristotle's proposition of corrective justice highlights the necessity of managing wrong,
21 reviving equivalency, and upping the rule of law in upping a sincere society. Corrective
22 justice gives a model for working controversies and offenses in an equal and fair way by
23 enforcing principles of proportionality, retaliation, compensation, and conciliation. It
24 contributes to erecting a safe, flourished and well- maintained society for individualities.

25

26

23
1 Source: - www.researchgate.com

2 Figure 6.0 demonstrates the above context of distributive justice and corrective justice.
3 It distinguishes between both.

5 8.1.2.3 Fair Exchange

6 At the onset, it should be refocused out that the indifferent exchange of goods is, rigorously
7 speaking, a part of compensatory justice and therefore follows the same principles. Hughes,
8 still, highlights this subtype of compensatory justice in his companion work to the
9 Nicomachean Ethics, since it isn't so easy to define what a just or fair exchange of goods
10 should be. He draws on Aristotle’s illustration of how an exchange between a shoemaker and
11 a construction worker should do. Actually, a single shoe or a single brace of shoes can not be
12 changed for a house. But how numerous dyads of shoes is a house worth exactly? Again,
13 Aristotle speaks of the equivalency that must be established between both parties. According
14 to him, plutocrat is used for this purpose, with which the value of different objects can be
15 measured and put in relation to each other. plutocrat, still, is only a placeholder for “ need ”,
16 which in this case can presumably be understood as “ need ” or alternately as “ want ”. The
17 value of an object (or conceivably also of a service) is principally determined by the need of a
18 implicit client for this object and by the need of a implicit dealer of this object to vend the
19 same, and can thus also change depending on the “ strength ” of the need or need in one
20 direction or the other, is thus relative. Indeed if this sapience is also of an profitable nature,
21 according to Hughes, Aristotle isn't concerned with this aspect, but rather with the question of
22 whether a fair average value for both parties can be set up in principle in an exchange or a
23 trade of any kind, which can be affirmed on the base of the former donation.

24

25 8.2 The Role of Justice in Aristotle’s Ethics

26 Now that Aristotelian justice and its subtypes have been sufficiently presented, the following
27 chapter of this thesis will deal with its special position within the Nicomachean Ethics. It is
28 worth investigating for (at least) three reasons: First, because of its position between law and
29 justice; second, because of its special position between the other Aristotelian virtues, e.g.
30 between ethics and disonethics, the moral and intellectual virtues; and third, because of its
31 validity both for the individual in particular and for society as a whole.

24
1

4 8.2.1 Between Justice and Law – Aristotle’s Equality

5 Winthrop describes equivalency as originally differing with justice. Aristotle makes clear that
6 justice (at least in the sense of the law) isn't equal to equivalency. At the morning of the fifth
7 book of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle had approached justice through its contrary. Does
8 this mean now that everything except the just is automatically unjust? This must be denied at
9 least in the case of equivalency. Although it seems to be contrary to justice, it's simply
10 another kind of justice, which fulfil an extremely important function, videlicet “ as a
11 necessary correction of legal justice and superior to it ”. Guest II agrees with this statement
12 and indeed goes so far as to claim that equivalency is generally seen as indeed commodity
13 better than justice, but not always;E.g. not when “ what is just ‘ simply ’ or ‘ without
14 qualification ’. Laws are generally universal, i.e., should be applicable to all persons and
15 situations, but this can not always be the case without doing an injustice, which would of
16 course miss the point. What Aristotle refers to as “ simply just ” or “ just without qualification
17 ” in the below quotation can presumably be related to the typically universal character of
18 laws If they make sense in the particular situation, the law retains itsvalidity.However, still,
19 the case arises that an injustice is foisted by one of these universal laws, If. A analogous
20 interpretation can be set up in Beever Equality is then also a kind of middleman between
21 legal or juridical and absolute justice. Absolute justice is what he calls particular justice in its
22 wholeness. For the sake of understanding, he gives the following illustration “ Suppose legal
23 justice dictates that A is obliged to do X, but it's( all effects considered) unjust to bear A to
24 doX. Legal justice is the part of morality that prescribes that A must do X; absolute justice is
25 the part that allows A not to do X; and equity is the part that acts on legal justice to limit its
26 effect, so that A doesn't actually have to doX. Equity, also, isn't justice itself, but the part of
27 morality that corrects the blights of legal justice. ” Hughes defines Aristotle’s equivalency as
28 a tool that's applied “ when the outgrowth of applying a law in some unusual set of
29 circumstances would in fact result in an injustice being done. ” therefore, this tool is applied
30 when the operation of a law results in an injustice. This is said to be the case when a situation
31 arises whose circumstances and course of events weren't anticipated by the lawmakers. As a
32 result, the law may no longer correspond to justice, at least in the sense of Beever’s absolute
25
1 justice. Equity is supposed to resolve this distinction, analogous to what Beever has formerly
2 described “ To add this up, Aristotle defines ‘ the indifferent ’ as a correction of the law where
3 it's shy because it's universal. ” At this point, attention is inescapably drawn to the fact that
4 this doesn't mean that a law should be permanently amended or indeed fully repealed in such
5 a case. On the negative, “ to keep it as it's leaves open the possibility of execution ”, should
6 this be applicable in the particular case. Hughes explains this vividly with the illustration of
7 the legal status of euthanasia in England, which is principally illegal. still, if euthanasia was
8 performed due to ” genuine compassion and care for the would- be self-murder ”, the court
9 may choose not to put a penalty. still, if this has not been the case, the applicable instrument
10 of the council is free to put a corresponding penalty on the base of the law against supported
11 self-murder, which would not be possible if this law didn't live. This illustration makes it
12 clear that equivalency is simply intended to give for a more flexible operation of the laws
13 established by justice, rather than to permanently stamp them. As has been illustrated in the
14 chapter on general equity, laws should be guided by the common good of society and,
15 immaculately, should fulfill this purpose in utmost cases. therefore, if a law guarantees the
16 common good in general and this only doesn't apply in exceptional cases, in which
17 equivalency must also again be interposed, also the law principally fulfills its purpose and
18 doesn't need to be amended. Eventually, I would like to quote Chroust & Osborn on the
19 relationship between equivalency and justice “ Equality, like moral justice, is a social virtue,
20 and this social nature, common to both moral justice and equivalency, furnishes farther
21 evidence that they aren't two different merits but simply two aspects of the same virtue. ”
22 Equality and justice, because of their “ social nature ” are therefore both simply two sides of
23 the same coin in the Aristotelian proposition of justice and necessary for the actuality of a just
24 society. piecemeal from justice, Aristotle also deals with other merits in his Nicomachean
25 Ethics, which he considers essential for the function, actuality and development of both the
26 individual and society. In the following chapter, the special position of justice among these
27 merits will be examined in further detail.

28

29

30 8.2.2 Justice between Aristotle’s other Virtues

31 Aristotle’s understanding of the term virtue differs from ours. So, if virtue can't be understood
32 in its modern sense, how can the term be defined? Aristotle said that “ a virtue is the swish
26
1 arrangement, character or capability of commodity useful or available ”. Or in other words “
2 the estimable and precious character ”. also, Huang cites wisdom and largesse as samples of
3 analogous graces. One can therefore conclude from this that the author basically defines a
4 specific virtue as a good character particularity, or all graces in general united in one person
5 as “ the swish character ”. According to Trude, the graces themselves arise from the mortal
6 need to attain happiness. In order to achieve this thing, which is common to all mortal beings,
7 certain criteria must be fulfilled, which the Aristotelian graces, including over all “ those
8 concerned with thinking, ” fullfil. Among these criteria is that the bliss “ proceeds entirely
9 from man and his faculties ” or his “ exertion ” “ This must be man’s own exertion, since
10 chance, independent of man’s will, can't bring about the bliss. Likewise, it's necessary that the
11 happiness has duration, that is, that it lasts throughout the whole life. ultimately, bliss grants
12 man the topmost pleasure 73). ” Under this description of the graces now also justice falls, to
13 which as the only one among the moral graces a complete book is devoted. In total, the
14 treatment of justice makes up one tenth of the entire ethics. Aristotle describes it as “ a
15 purposeful virtue, but not par excellence, but in relation to one’s fellow man. For this reason,
16 justice is constantly considered the most excellent of the graces ” and further as “ the perfect
17 virtue, because it's the exercise of perfect virtue ”. This also means that – at least in general –
18 justice is not a bare part of virtue, but embodies virtue itself. As a reason for this special
19 position of justice, Aristotle gives its reference “ not only for itself ”, but also to the other
20 members of a society. Justice is, “ Unlike the other graces about striking a balance between
21 ourselves and others and it is not considered good simply because the practice of virtue is its
22 own end. ” Again, the emphasis is on the value of justice not only for oneself, but also for
23 fellow mortal beings and the common good. Interestingly, Guest adds to this statement that
24 Aristotelian justice is not “ good ” solely by virtue of being a virtue, but primarily by virtue
25 of its impact on society, which further sets it incremental from the other graces. Chroust and
26 Osborn agree with this description of justice as the topmost of all graces, but add that it's
27 also the most delicate of all graces, perhaps precisely because it's directed – at least in part –
28 outside, to fellow mortal beings and to the common good of the state or society, and not
29 simply to the existent. Difficulty may well be understood also in connection with the
30 practical exercise of justice as a virtue. likewise, justice is called “ the most perfect virtue
31 because it's the practice of perfect virtue ”( Chroust & Osborn 1942,p. 134). thus, justice
32 holds this special position among the graces because its practice includes all other graces,
33 which may also contribute to the forenamed special difficulty of justice as a virtue.

27
1

2 8.2.2.1 Justice between the moral and intellectual Virtues

3 Justice as a virtue finds itself in the curious position between the moral and intellectual
4 graces, ethike and diaonethike, both in terms of the structure of Nicomachean Ethics and
5 because of its parcels and subject matter “ This placement reflects the fact that it forms a
6 ground of feathers between them, not only because justice is shown to bear discriminating
7 judgment as well as good character, but because the analysis reveals that the ground of the
8 moral graces is problematic. ” Trude describes the dianoethic graces as the logical,
9 intellectual, and thinking or sense graces, contrary to the ethical graces, which he describes as
10 the practical, moral, and character virtue. Justice, also, in order to fulfil its function as a
11 virtue, must relate to rates of both the moral and intellectual graces. How exactly this takes
12 place is vividly described by Curzer. Curzer argues that general justice is not a virtue in the
13 sense of the other Aristotelian graces, as samples of which “ courage, temperance, particular
14 justice ” are mentioned also. In distinction to these, general justice does not have a
15 unrestricted subject area and consists of “ those aspects of all of the other graces which
16 pertain to other people ”. It thus incorporates aspects of all other graces, which Curzer also
17 knew how to depict pictorially. Particular justice would rather correspond to one of the other
18 Aristotelian graces than to general justice, since the ultimate would have a unrestricted
19 generality of justice, videlicet “ cases of the distribution of the goods of fortune to others ”, as
20 formerly directed out in the chapters on distributive and compensatory justice. This results in
21 the following illustration with the Aristotelian graces on the left sect, and general justice
22 resemblant to the same on the right. This similar position is meant to illustrate that general
23 justice combines aspects of all the other graces. Particular justice as well as nemesis are
24 located as subtypes of general justice, but as full graces in the sense of graces on the left side
25 of the illustration( at least in the case of particular justice), above general justice. Nemesis
26 denotes a character particularity that is mentioned only curtly in the EN and is uninteresting
27 the special position of justice among the Aristotelian graces, since it is not a virtue.

28

28
1 Soursce- www.european-origins.com

2 Fig. 7.0: Diagram 1 showing the relationship of General and Particular Justice to the other
3 Aristotelian virtues.

4 Justice – although actually part of the moral virtues – thus also refers to the intellectual
5 virtues, ethike and dianoethike.

7 8.2.2.2 Justice as a Virtue without a Median

8 According to Young, the Aristotelian merits can generally be seen as a middle ground
9 between two axes. Whereas Aristotle’s schoolteacher Plato still simply varied a virtue with
10 a single vice, similar as courage with poltroonery, Aristotle argues that every virtue has one
11 vice on either side. therefore, on the one side of courage would be poltroonery and on the
12 other side would be heartlessness. But what should these two vices be at the extreme ends of
13 the diapason in justice? Injustice on one side stands to reason, but what's on the other side?
14 According to Young, general justice doesn't meet this( and other) else common criterion of
15 the other Aristotelian merits and thus can not be understood as virtue in the sense of these
16 other merits. Hughes, on the other hand, argues that the emotional aspect of general justice,
17 the intention to do the right thing, occupies the middle position between “ not to watch about
18 doing the right thing at all ” and “ some kind of scrupulosity, a pettifogging asseveration on
19 the letter of the law being observed to a ridiculous extent. ” According to this description,
20 also, justice would meet the criterion of virtue as a means between two axes. In Aristotle’s
21 proposition of justice, he relates to the proposition of justice as an integrity without a
22 standard, which easily means that justice is a form of integrity that exists in its own right and
23 isn't a mean between two axes like our merits. This idea is centrally connected to Aristotle’s
24 way of understanding justice as an important ethical principle that guides the correct path
25 towards decent mortal geste and connections within a community. Aristotle bravely argues

29
1 that justice is different from other forms of integrity which includes courage or temperature,
2 because it includes the terms of correct relationship between individualities and their
3 relations with others. Justice isn't about notoriety’s internal fight or state but it also depends
4 explosively on how individualities relate to each other in a fair manner with equivalency and
5 respect. According to Aristotle’s proposition of justice, it's a form if integrity without a
6 standard encompasses both distributive justice and corrective justice. Distributive justice
7 includes the fairness in distribution of good, coffers and openings within members of the
8 community grounded on merit and conditions. Corrective justice on the other hand, focuses
9 on being against wrongdoings and restoring balance whenever an injustice occurs.

10

11 8.2.3 Justice between Individual and Social Ethics

12 In his 2007 paper “ Justice as a virtue An analysis of Aristotle’s virtue of justice, ” Huang
13 defines Aristotelian justice as “ an individual ethical virtue, differing from others for it's at the
14 same time a social heritage. ” The author sees Aristotelian justice as positioned between
15 individual and social ethics, with rudiments applicable to both the individual and to the
16 commerce of citizens within a social structure similar as a society or a state. This becomes
17 especially clear in the distinction between universal or general justice and specific or
18 particular justice, whereby justice in the former, as was formerly shown in the former
19 chapter, is to be equated with virtue in general and therefore carries a lesser significance for
20 the existent, and in the ultimate the legal connections between several parties are the focus.
21 For this reason, Huang also calls Aristotelian justice “ a ‘non-individual-individual ethical
22 virtue ’”. This makes sense when one considers that Aristotle’s thing in writing the
23 Nicomachean Ethics apparently was to give a companion to a good or righteous life, then,
24 of course, in terms of the Aristotelian merits. This life is to be made possible in the first place
25 by a society organized according to the same merits. While this principle applies to the
26 summation of the Aristotelian merits, it makes particular sense in the case of justice.
27 Whoever wants to lead a good life must also act justly and whoever is wronged frequently
28 needs help from others,e.g. a judge, to restore justice. For this it needs thus a kind of
29 institution, which determines laws after which judges and/ or courts can judge. Through this,
30 Aristotelian justice receives both its individual and its social ethical aspect. Aristotle’s justice
31 in the social ethical sense is supposed to be “ the grand personification of the moral vision of
32 the political community and the patron of its happiness ”. In this environment, it also makes

30
1 perfect sense that a part. Aristotle’s proposition of justice as mentioned in his work “
2 Nicomachean Ethics, ” gives of an overview of understanding the relationship between
3 individual ethics and social ethics. According to Aristotle, justice is an integrity that includes
4 giving each existent their freights both in terms of introductory rights and liabilities. In this
5 environment, justice is served as a way of achieving peace and perfect balance within society.
6 Aristotle discerned between two kind of justice which includes 1. Distributive Justice 2.
7 Corrective Justice. Distributive Justice includes the factual distribution of coffers, honours
8 and liabilities within members of society grounded on merit and conditions and the process
9 should be fair for each member while Corrective justice on the other hands easily focuses on
10 pointing out wrongdoings and restoring balance when injustice occurs. In terms of the
11 relationship between individual and social ethics, Aristotle argues explosively with his valid
12 point that individualities have a certain responsibility to uplift integrity similar as justice in
13 order to fairly contribute to the advanced side of the society as a whole. He explosively
14 believes that ethical geste is veritably important for performing of a decent and harmonious
15 society. At the analogous time, Aristotle emphasises the significance of social institutions
16 asks laws in promoting justice and maintaining law and order within a community and
17 promote peace.

18

19

20 Source www.investopedia.com Figure 8.0 demonstrates the above context.

21

31
1

5 9. Kinds and says:

6 A type of justice in strict sense and fairly action conforms to it (distributive justice),
7 influences distribution of honour, money and other things among citizens who have shares in
8 political system of the society (because it is possible that someone has an equally or unequal
9 share relative to the others); the other type of justice plays a correcting role in the transactions
10 and communications among people in the society. This type of justice (corrective) is also
11 divided into two types; as some transactions are freely and voluntarily and some are
12 not.Distributive justice is related to the distribution of honour, money and other benefits in
13 the society; while penal justice is related to the imposition of punishment on the offenders by
14 judge, in both cases justice means "proportional equality". Either his innovation in dividing
15 social justice into two penal and distributive types or his figurative definition of justice have
16 been accepted by later philosophers. The relationship between justice and equality is an
17 important debate by Aristotle about distributive justice. He considers distributive justice
18 conforming to the existing equality among people and objects-objects which should be
19 distributed. In his opinion, fairly action at least requires four elements; as any distribution is
20 done at least between two individuals and each receives a share of what being distributed.
21 Equality and inequalities of every share is a function of the equality and inequality of those
22 two; because the relationship between objection exist between individuals. If individuals are
23 not equal, they won’t be able to obtain equal objects.

24

25

26

27

28

32
1

2 10. Conclusion

3 Aristotle’s treatment of justice begins with a reference to its nebulosity. After reading this
4 composition, it should have come sufficiently clear why the conception of justice is nebulous,
5 maybe indeed more so than Aristotle himself was apprehensive of when writing the Ethics.
6 According to Aristotle, justice can be astronomically divided into two general types The
7 general and the particular justice. But at least the particular justice has again at least two
8 subtypes, in the eyes of some authors indeed as numerous as five. piecemeal from the
9 subtypes of Aristotelian justice presented in this paper, there has also been expansive
10 discussion of political and natural justice and their position in the Nicomachean Ethics.
11 Unfortunately, these instantiations of the Aristotelian conception of justice couldn't be
12 bandied in further detail then, as this would go beyond the compass of this thesis. This is only
13 to show how complex Aristotle’s conception of justice actually is. Another end of this work
14 was to demonstrate how Aristotle saw justice and how he distinguished between the different
15 types of justice. The most important point in this donation was presumably the formerly
16 mentioned nebulosity, which shows that justice isn't equal to justice and different situations
17 also bear different types of justice. And indeed also, there can still be difficulties when it
18 comes to what's now just, as has been shown in detail in the illustration of Aristotelian
19 equivalency. This brings me to the alternate thing of this thesis To show how justice as a
20 virtue occupies a special place within the Nicomachean Ethics. A large part of Aristotle’s
21 work is grounded on the Aristotelian merits, which are considered necessary for the
22 construction, conservation and development of both the state or society and the existent. The
23 structure of the Ethics alone indicates the special part that justice plays within this work. One
24 tenth of the Nicomachean Ethics is devoted to the treatment of justice and its species, a
25 considerable proportion when one considers the number of merits. still, the special position of
26 justice becomes indeed clearer on the base of its positioning between the moral and
27 intellectual merits, a circumstance Winthrop aptly described as “ a ground of feathers
28 ”( Winthrop 1978,p. 1202) between the two kinds of merits. We detailed the ways in which
29 Aristotelian justice relates to both the moral and intellectual merits. Also conspicuous is the
30 apparent absence of the criterion of virtue as a means, if we disregard Hughes’s interpretation
31 of justice as an emotionally motivated midpoint between “ doing nothing ” or “ minding
32 nothing ” and pedantically following laws without any reflection on their rightness or justice.

33
1 Last but not least, the position of justice between social and individual ethics was dealt with.
2 merits similar as courage, which has formerly been used as an illustration in this thesis, easily
3 relate to the existent. Justice, on the other hand, applies to both the individual and society. An
4 existent must act justly in order to live innocently and therefore well, and justice within
5 society is necessary to make such a life possible in the first place. still, this justice at the
6 societal position is in turn only possible if righteous individualities can enthrall positions in
7 the council, similar as solon and judge. therefore, the individual and social ethical aspects of
8 Aristotelian justice are mutually dependent. By pressing these points, the special position of
9 justice within the Nicomachean Ethics should have come clear. Again, different
10 experimenters have come to different results regarding the special nature of justice and not
11 every result could be included in this work. It would be intriguing for the farther disquisition
12 of Aristotle’s conception of justice to compare it with other workshop of Aristotle, similar as
13 the other ethics or politics, in order to establish a further comprehensive proposition of justice
14 according to Aristotle or also to probe to what extent Aristotle’s conception of justice has
15 changed in the course of time. still, the purpose of this thesis to present the nebulosity and
16 distinctness of Aristotle’s justice should be fulfilled by the present reflections. Aristotle
17 justice proposition has fed from different areas of his studies. Aristotle natural general
18 proposition has impressed his anthropology and these two have formed Aristotelian ethics.
19 Aristotle justice proposition is just his Happiness- centred and virtue- grounded proposition
20 which have been enforced in society; Aristotle looks at justice naturalistically and virtually.
21 He wants to display the path of Happiness and believes that virtue can be a ground to reach
22 happiness. From Aristotle's view, temperance is located between going to axes. He admires
23 justice as the supreme political virtue and this respect denotes the lack of justice in a
24 community implicitly. Accordingly, it does not have an essential base for a political system.
25 therefore, Aristotle divides justice into two general and strict senses. The general justice
26 consists of what's legal grounded on equivalency and fair and strict sense is divided into two
27 corrective and distributive types itself. In his justice the orym. Aristotle seeks to specify
28 happiness and fortunes of perfect man. Balance, temperance, equivalency and lust are the
29 main generalities of Aristotle justice virtue which are applied as a part of a virtue, that's
30 justice virtue. From Aristotle's view, merits can be a tool or ground to reach happiness. merits
31 are moderations between going to axes. Happiness and fortune as the supreme weal is a
32 starting point for Aristotelian practical gospel. Aristotle defines substance, which is our action
33 ultimate weal as the pride' s trouble acclimated to the merits and he claims that justice is the
34 centre of the merits which accomplishes human's substance. The corridor which are to

34
1 constitute a single organic total must be different in kind. And therefore, it's the principle of
2 complementary equivalency which is the preservative of every polis, as I've formerly stated
3 in the Ethics; for this principle inescapably obtains indeed in a society of free and equal
4 persons. For Aristotle, each act of exchange that accords with justice in deals reaffirms the
5 values that the community sets on its colorful members and on their products and services.
6 Reciprocity upholds the morals through which the community is bound together into one
7 reality. also, each act of corrective justice, whether it is applied to voluntary deals that have
8 gone crazy or to involuntary deals, helps to sustain the bonds that hold the association
9 together by administering its underpinning morals and understandings of just and unjust
10 conduct. Aristotle didn't imagine that we can make judgments about the justice or injustice of
11 being laws on the base of an eternal and inflexible natural law, because he didn't believe that
12 such a law for political and legal matters exists; infact he seems not indeed to have conceived
13 this idea of natural law. But he did believe that the conception of reciprocity inventories a
14 standard to which we should appeal in assessing the justice or injustice of laws, because the
15 well- being of every polis depends on the conservation of relations of reciprocity. Aristotle’s
16 jottings constantly confirm that, in his view, the conception of justice applies primarily to
17 relations among men who are free and fairly equal to each other. He contrasts these relations
18 sprucely and constantly with those that gain among categorical unequals. Recall one of the
19 crucial statements in his discussion of justice in the unqualified sense “ People seek moreover
20 to return wrong for wrong – for else they consider themselves reduced to slaves – or to repay
21 good with good, for else there's no collective donation(.) ”. Healthy relations among
22 coordinates are embedded in the practice of reciprocity, a practice that fosters a sense of
23 community among men who are relative equals, yet who differ in the ways in which they're
24 able of contributing to their common life. For Aristotle, the practice of reciprocity binds
25 together the political community. Aristotle’s generalizations both of justice and of the kind of
26 community through which a healthy political association is constituted stage in sharp
27 discrepancy to Plato’s ideas on these matters. Just as he implicitly criticizes Plato’s
28 asseveration that justice must be one and only one thing by opening his own discussion of
29 justice with an account of the different kinds of effects that justice can be, he also criticizes
30 Plato for arguing that the stylish kind of political community is the kind that attains the
31 topmost possible concinnity. On the negative, in his Politics Aristotle argues that “ it is
32 apparent, still, that, as a polis advances and becomes further of a unit, it'll cease to be a polis
33 at all ”. A political community must be composed of different kinds of men with different
34 capacities. Because they're of different kinds, those men must be bound together through

35
1 connections of reciprocity that admit and strengthen the morals on which the community is
2 grounded. For Aristotle, each act of exchange that accords with justice in deals reaffirms the
3 values that the community sets on its colorful members and on their products and services.
4 Reciprocity upholds the morals through which the community is bound together into one
5 reality. also, each act of corrective justice, whether it is applied to voluntary deals that have
6 gone crazy or to involuntary deals, helps to sustain the bonds that hold the association
7 together by administering its underpinning morals and understandings of just and unjust
8 conduct. Aristotle didn't imagine that we can make judgments about the justice or injustice of
9 being laws on the base of an eternal and inflexible natural law, because he didn't believe that
10 such a law for political and legal matters exists; in- fact he seems not indeed to have
11 conceived this idea of natural law. But he did believe that the conception of reciprocity
12 inventories a standard to which we should appeal in assessing the justice or injustice of laws,
13 because the well- being of every polis depends on the conservation of relations of reciprocity.

14

15 11. Suggestions/ Recommendations

16  Getting involved deeply into Aristotle’s integral form of Ethics: To actually

17 understand Aristotle’s theory of justice, it is very important to explore his broader
18 integral overview which evolves around the cultivation of virtues. Fall into his
19 Nicomachean Ethics to absorb the interconnection of integrity, including justice, and
20 the way they contribute their part to human flourishing.
21

22  Examination of theory of mean in justice: Spend time and efforts examining

23 Aristotle’s theory of justice as available means between less and excess. Consider
24 how this perfectly balance out the distributive and corrective justice and reflect on the
25 various examples of real world where if we find mean it’s a sign that we found
26 something important in order to gain fairness and equality.
27
28

29  Properly Studying Aristotle’s views on citizenship: After reviewing over Aristotle’s

30 particular outlook of companionship among the citizens which definitely excludes
31 certain group of individuals as if in any way a fight occurs then the consequences

36
1 would be unbearable . Considering how his hierarchical overlook to the society
2 clearly has a conflict going on with modern outlooks of equality and social integrity.
3

4  Applying Aristotle’s theory of justice to coincidental problems : After meeting up with

5 all those ongoing social challenges and fights such as fight for environmental justice ,
6 fight for criminal justice reform or fight for global inequality which includes caste
7 inequality , racism and other forms of injustice observed bt Aristotle’s lenses in his
8 theory of justice. Evaluation of how important his emphasis is as it can affect
9 integrated ethics and the common goods can impart practical solutions to these
10 complex issues in a more appropriate way.
11
12

13  Contemplating Cross-cultural impositions on Justice: On exploring how Aristotle’s

14 theory of justice revolves around non western philosophical traditions and cultural
15 perspective on justice we find about how he’s attached to his roots and still believes
16 more in tradition and understanding of primitive culture and adding a modern effect
17 equally in order to create a better environment for the society where they can learn
18 about old traditions while adapting modern methods which aims to make life easier.
19 Comparison and contrast of different ways of understanding to Justice to obtain a
20 more comprehensive learning of its multifaceted nature as he was a person who
21 values history.
22

23  Reflecting on the most relevant form of friendship and cooperation in justice :

24 Reflecting on Aristotle’s complete views on friendship as a solid base foundation for
25 just relationships and communities. I feel that encouragement in actual connections
26 and mutual respect for every individual can truly enhance a sense of justice in
27 interpersonal interaction and social relationships.
28
29

30  Engaging yourself more and more in Dialogue and Debate : A proper engagement in
31 discussions with school mates, college mates , scholars or experts in field of
32 philosophy and ethical integrity to widely deepen your level of understanding in the
33 topic of Aristotle’s theory of justice. Challenges yourself , your own ideas and
34 interpretations by taking in account various alternative viewpoints and engaging in

37
1 constructive debate truly helps us to improve our speech and fight bravely and impart
2 knowledge which increases our chances of winning.
3

4  Applying Aristotle’s theory of Justice in practical framework : Considering the

5 methods we can apply Aristotle’s insights and take inspiration of Justice and apply it
6 both in our personal and professional lives. Reflecting on various ways truly teaches
7 us to improve integrity , promote social equality and contribute utmost to the common
8 good in our day to day interactions with other individuals and in broader social
9 contexts.

10 12. REFERENCES

11 Some of the books-

12 1- Aristotle, (1985), About ego, translated by Alimorad Davoodi. Fourth edition. Tehran:
13 Sepehr press.

14 2- Aristotle, (1991), Aten' s ruling principles, translated by Mohammed. Ebrahimi. Bastani.

15 Parisi.

16 Tehran: Amirkabir press.

17 3- Aristotl, (1979), Ethics. Translated by Isaac ibn Hanin. First edition. Kuwait

18 4- Aristotle, (1999). Good ethics of machine, translated by Mohammed Hassan Lotfi. Tehran:
19 Tarheno

20 press.

21 5- Aristotle, (2007), Politics. Translated by Hamid Enayat; Tehran: cultural scientific press.

22 6- Anbari, MOjtaba &Amin, Fatemeh (2009), ethics and politics linkages in Aristotle's
23 thinking.

24 Islamic speech and philosophy of recognition mirror quarterly, Shahid Beheshti University.

25 7- Basharieh, Hossein, (2003), Anbar introduction to the justice philosophy, Naghed journal.

26 8- Basis.Mirmahdi, (2008), Greeks and Barbarians, Tehran. Toos press.

27 9- Pooladi,Kamel, (2003), history of political thinking in West from Socrates to Makiavli,

28 Tehran: Maria's

38
1 press.

2 10- Tedbenton,Yan Craip (2004). Social philosophy: philosophical basics of social thinking,
3 translated by

4 Shahnaz. Mosami parts,Tehran: Agah press.

7 Some of the websites

8 11- CHATGPT 3.5

9 12- Wikipedia

10 13- www.researchgate.com

11 14- Googlebard

12 15- BYJU’s

13 16- Onlyias

14

15

39