Aristotles Views on Justice and Virtue - Essay Example

?Aristotle’s Views on Justice and Virtue Introduction Aristotle, who lived between 384 BC and 322 BC, is still perceived as one of the initiators of the concept of Western democracy. Aristotle stated that justice is a word that can be used to define impartiality or fairness, as injustice describes anarchy and inequality. In his estimation, regulations inspire people to conduct themselves morally, therefore, the fair individual, whose character is legitimate, will essentially be honourable. He states that a desirable character who claims he/she acts according to the moral code of justice is not the same thing as justice itself because it is only concerned with an individual’s moral state, while fairness has to do with an individual’s associations with other people. Aristotle claimed that justice should be dispensed in an appropriate manner. He also believed in the strength of virtue in changing the society. Aristotle's book, ‘Nicomachean Ethics’ explained the theory of virtue. He mentioned two kinds of virtue: the moral variety, and the intellectual variety (Raphael 2003). When Aristotle mentioned the subject of moral virtues, he spoke in reference to a person's character, and the way he conducted himself in his daily life. He stated that an individual’s character is a learned function, and not one that he was born with. Essentially, he felt that virtue was merely the balance between different extremes. The Greek term for "happiness" is pronounced as Eudaimonia, which basically refers to maintaining a pleasant spirit. In Aristotle’s view, the highest objective of man was to maintain joy. Aristotle stressed that the definition of happiness was not merely keeping a happy face on a constant basis, or running after pleasure filled activities so that one can maintain superficial joy. This is how the current society tends to define happiness (Raphael 2003). Happiness and the possession of good morals are factors that are linked, in Aristotle’s view. His definition of the term ‘Eudaimonia’ was "contentment, and not necessarily constant high living and the pursuit of pleasurable endeavours. He stressed that the correct description of ‘Eudaimonia’ was not personal indulgence in pleasure, but an "awareness of virtue" (Raphael 2003). Eudaimonia is, according to Aristotle, a consciousness and possession of a virtuous character, and not merely a pleasant sensation. It is probable that the founding fathers of America had this definition of happiness in mind when they declared in the declaration of independence that “the pursuit of happiness” was to be considered as an objective in the new nation. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, the factors that were necessary to achieve eudaimonia were defined as self capability and decisiveness. Aristotle affirmed that these characteristics could only be achieved through individual initiative and ambition, which he referred to as the "humanistic" criterion (Raphael 2003). Aristotle also rejected the concept that the greatest good was a god given characteristic that could not be achieved without some kind of divine assistance. H e also believed that happiness was the one characteristic or aspect that was its own reward. It could not be used as a means to realise another higher state of contentment, in other words. Those who discovered real happiness, according to Aristotle, would not feel the desire for something else or to experience some other state of contentment. Aristotle categorised virtues in practical terms. He was of the opinion that virtues dealt with the activities and zeal of the activities that people took part in, and what those activities made them feel like. He divided people’s feelings to fundamental pain and pleasure codes. He was endeavouring to instruct the citizens of Athens in the right way to carry themselves. He also believed that there was no one wrong or right way to feel. In the book on ‘Nichomachean Ethics’, Aristotle affirmed that if a person participated in 'good' acts, or assisted his fellow man, he would experience eudaimonia (Raphael 2003). His central argument regarding this was based on the presumption that every existing thing had a reason for existing. For instance, a pencil is made for the purpose of writing, and not piercing through things. Therefore, even though it has the ability to pierce things, its purpose is to mark the page. Aristotle stressed that his postulations about ethics and the man were in reference to men who were not living in isolation. He commented, "We do refer to a man who dwells in isolation, but a person who is surrounded by children, a wife, fellow citizens, and friends. Man is a political as well as a social being" (Raphael 2003). In other words, Aristotle believed that men gain their sense of self awareness and ethical purposes from their contributions to their society, as well as their families, customs of their societies, public institutions, and the regulations of their government. Aristotle did not appear to have any belief in introversion that did not take into account the family as well as society. He did not feel that there was a consciousness in every living person that was independent of their family and society. Even if some of his theories seemed to propose the existence of an inner life, Aristotle did not believe that any improvements could be made on this inner life that was independent of the good of the larger community. For him, human life, and thus human ethics, was firmly entrenched in the larger community. His moral concept described an ethical integrity that succeeded because everyone was focused on the good of the larger community. In age that came before the inception of most of the world’s religions that stressed on introspection, Aristotle seemed to have mentioned the existence of the human spirit, but defined it in a different way from the religious understanding of it. Aristotle did not believe that gods or a singular god held the answer to the inherent goodness of man. Even though the Greeks had a pantheon of gods, Aristotle did not ascribe to any of them the responsibility for leading the human soul through its travails, or difficulties. He seemed to have believed that the Greek gods were not really involved in the daily aspects of human life, and therefore, could not advise them on aspects concerning their spirits. This is completely different from the functions of organised religions in contemporary society. Aristotle’s Theories on Justice Even though Aristotle's political observations were inspired by Plato, who was his teacher, he was quite critical of Plato’s views about the construction of the perfect city state. In one of Aristotle's works, known as the "best constitution" all citizens, who in his society would be indicative of wealthy men, had to be in possession ethical virtue and have the capacity to execute moral actions that would result in an existence of total happiness (Raphael 2003). Aristotle believed that all the Greek citizens could hold political positions, and be in possession of private property since "one should refer to the city-state as being happy not because of its outward attractiveness, but because of the sincere joy that affected all its citizens (Miller 1997). He also believed that there should be a singular education system that would cater to all Greek citizens, because they all wished to accomplish the same objectives in the end (Miller 1997). Moreover, he hinted that if the citizens of the city state had no resources to realise complete happiness, the governing officials had the responsibility to create a constitution that would achieve what the citizens had been unable to. Aristotle stated that the word ‘Justice’ defines legality due to the fact that the term ‘injustice’ is defined as lawlessness (Mulgan 1987). Government regulations encourage citizens to conduct themselves in a virtuous manner, and so the just individual, who is being legal, is, of necessity, virtuous. Virtue is a different thing from justice, as it deals with the human being’s moral state, while fairness has to do with the relations between two or more people. Universal justice, according to Aristotle, describes the person that is impartial and decent. Particular justice refers to the “separable” goods of money, honour, and safety (Sandel 2010). Aristotle believed that one individual’s acquisition of such goods corresponds to a loss in the fortunes of another. Aristotle affirmed that there are two types of justice: rectificatory and distributive justice. Distributive justice was concerned with the allocation of wealth among different community members. It used geometric proportions to realise these allocations (Raphael 2003). According to Aristotle, what each individual ended up receiving was directly comparative to his or her value, and so a bad person would inevitably end up receiving considerably less than a good person would Williams 1982). This type of justice is a moral mean between the probability of giving more than an individual merits, and giving less than is meant to be received. Rectificatory justice, on the other hand, reviews disproportionate allocations of loss and gain between two individuals. Rectification can be used in cases concerning business transactions, or in the cases of theft (Miller 2003). Justice will then be reinstated through a court case, where the moderator makes sure that the losses as well as gains of both parties are equally distributed, thereby reinstating a mean. Justice has to be dispensed in a proportionate manner. For example, a baker and a builder cannot possibly exchange a loaf of bread for a house, due to the fact that these items are of unequal value. Instead, the baker would have to provide a continuous service of loaves for a stipulated amount of time that will be equivalent to the value in the structure that the builder constructs. Money shows the demand put on various commodities and facilitates the incidence of fair exchanges (Rosen 1975). Domestic justice and political justice are related topics, though distinct from each other. Political justice is determined by the stipulations that are laid down by the present government. On the other hand, domestic justice is more dependent on matters to do with respect. Citizens are all affected in the same way by political regulations. Government officials only come into play to correct voluntary acts of injustice (Sherman 1998). Those injustices that are committed without malicious intent, or unintentionally are referred to as mistakes (Nussbaum 1987). Occurrences of injustice that occur because We call injustice done out of ignorance “mistakes,” while injustices that are committed because plans were skewed are identified to as “misadventures.” Injustices that are committed on purpose are referred to as injuries. Under ordinary circumstances, ignorance is used as an excuse only if the error was practically inescapable. Aristotle observed that person will gladly suffer unfairness. He stated that when items are unfairly distributed, the supplier is guiltier than the individual that receives the biggest share. People erroneously presume that justice is a simple issue, as the only thing that people have to do is obey the laws (Kraut 1991). However, real justice comes merely from an honourable character, and those persons that are lacking in high merit are not unable to distinguish the just way to conduct matters in all cases. In addition, regulations may not always be completely applicable. In specific circumstances in which the government regulations do not create flawless justice, impartiality is needed to tend the disproportion. Therefore, impartiality is greater than legal justice, though inferior to complete justice. It is not possible for a person to treat himself in an unjust manner. In cases of injustice, one individual gains at the expense of another. In cases concerning suicide, it is the state that is the wronged party, as it has been deprived of a contributing member of society (Gill and Pellegrin 2009). Aristotle stated that justice involves restoring the balance that was upset by the error. He did not seem to make a distinction between the justice that has to do with business misdemeanours and criminal cases. It might be difficult to see what a commercial transaction might have in common with a brutal assault. For Aristotle, the criminal attack of an individual and a commercial transaction that went awry are identical in some way as they both have relations occurring between two people where one person benefits unfairly even as the other is disadvantaged in an unjust manner (Kelsen 2000). Since justice has to do with preserving a proper balance, any case that brings about an unfair advantage for one of two parties immediately becomes a concern for the law (Barnes 1995). Due to the fact that Aristotle considered just behaviour to be an example of virtuous conduct, he would imply that justice included the other additional virtues. The earlier proposal that justice is concerned with reinstating and making certain that balance is restored echoes Aristotle’s ‘Doctrine of the Mean’ (Pakaluk 2005). Justice is a balanced state in which all citizens get their proper due. Injustice, on the other hand, has to do with citizens either having too little or too much. From the beginning, Aristotle makes the distinction between universal justice, which is a common attribute of the righteous nature, and particular justice, which is the principal concern of his ‘Book V’. In his book, he states that particular justice is used in issues concerning money, honour, and safety, as all these represent examples of “zero sum” goods (Aristotle 2011). This follows the presumption that a gain for one individual brings about some loss for a different person. This is particularly evident where money is concerned. The same concept can be used to address issues of safety and honour. Apparently, honours that are unfairly bestowed on one individual will mean that another person is unfairly dispossessed of these honours. A physical attack on a person’s enemy can guarantee his or her safety because the attack launches an offensive on the enemy’s safety. Due to the fact that particular justice takes into account this zero sum trade of goods, Aristotle links particular injustice with insatiability, or the yearning to possess more than one is entitled to (Aristotle and Jowett 2000). In another chapter, Aristotle states that a person that commits adultery to receive financial reward is acting in an unjust manner, but a person who in fact loses money through committing adultery is displaying the characteristics of decadence, and not injustice. This idea of a ‘zero sum’ trade is tricky for numerous reasons. In the first place, it is not always the case that one individual’s gain is constantly equivalent to another individual’s loss. For instance, when a thief steals an item of considerable value, the loss of the person who is stolen from is far greater than the gain of the thief. More important, though, is the insinuation that if one individual is treated unfairly then another must have acted unfairly for the former to be in a state of need (Anagnostopoulos 2009). Aristotle made it plain that unfairness is a consequence of people desiring more than they are entitled to. He claimed that any behaviour that is stimulated by anger or lust is not merely unfair but also immoral. Distributive justice is a fundamental concept in Aristotle’s book, ‘Politics’. Aristotle proposed the notion that riches and honour can be circulated in accordance to virtue. The most decent citizens make the most critical contributions to the society, so they have just cause to have access to the greatest respect. Distributive justice, though well meant, is a fact that supports Aristotle’s patrician bias. In his age, not all people were considered to be deserving members of the society. Slaves, working class males, and women were all not considered as citizens. This theory of Aristotle’s would mean that these groups of people would have no right to the wealth of the city. Women, slaves and working men did not have the liberty to completely make use of all the virtues, therefore, in Aristotle’s estimation, through no fault of their own they were not entitled to a share of the city’s wealth. Distributive justice is rather evasive in this aspect. Those who have the most freedom in Aristotle’s era, were entitled, according to Aristotle, to the freedom, leisure, and affluence that could afford virtue, and thus were most worthy people to receive further privileges, according to his theory. Aristotle’s distributive justice essentially sought to strengthen the best faction of an unjust aristocracy. References Anagnostopoulos, G. (2009) A Companion to Aristotle, Wiley-Blackwell, New York. Aristotle & Jowett, B. (2000) Politics, Dover Publications, Dover. Aristotle. (2011) Nicomachean ethics (book v - ‘justice’), CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, New York. Barnes, J. (1995) The Cambridge companion to Aristotle, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gill, M. & Pellegrin, P. (2009) A companion to ancient philosophy, Wiley-Blackwell, New York. Kelsen, H. (2000) What is justice? Justice, law and politics in the mirror of science, The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., New York. Kraut, R. (1991) Aristotle on the human good, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Miller, A. (2003) An introduction to contemporary metaethics, Polity, New York. Miller, F. (1997) Nature, justice, and rights in Aristotle's politics, Oxford University Press, New York. Mulgan, R. (1987) Aristotle’s political theory, Oxford University Press, New York. Nussbaum, M. (1987) Nature, function, and capability: Aristotle on political distribution, World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University, Oxford. Pakaluk, M. (2005) Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics: an introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Raphael, D. (2003) Concepts of justice, Oxford University Press, New York. Rosen, F. (1975) The political context of Aristotle’s categories of justice, Phronesis, New York. Sandel, M. (2010) Justice: what’s the right thing to do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York. Sherman, N. (1998) Aristotle’s ethics: critical essays, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, New York. Williams, B. (1982) Moral luck, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Read More