Justice: According to Plato and Aristotle

By David VanAcker

Submitted to Mary Dietz POL 5251

November 20, 2003

Justice: According to Plato and Aristotle By justice a king gives a country stability, but one who is greedy for bribes tears it down (Proverbs 29:4). Then, if a good and just persons life is that much more pleasant than the life of a bad and unjust person, wont its grace, fineness and virtue be incalculably greater? (REP p.259) Both the lawless man and the grasping and unfair man are thought to be unjust, so that evidently both the law-abiding and the fair man will be just. (NE p.107) "I believe in justice," he said. "It's the driving force in my life. Out there somewhere is the person who did this, and that person should be held accountable." (Sheriff of Ramsey County, Bob Fletcher in a November 6th interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune). The concept of justice is one that seems to transcend culture, location, and time. Justice and what is just (along with injustice and what is unjust) has (and seems to have always had) a tacitly agreed upon meaning. In its most general sense justice is understood as rightness or fairness or goodness. Feeling wronged and believing to have done right rulers, citizens, and slaves alike have always appealed to justice. This was true for ancient Israel, it was true during Plato and Aristotles time, and it is true today. It is my contention (based on my reading of the Republic and the Nicomachean Ethics) that Plato and Aristotle do, in fact, agree generally on this definition of justice (rightness and fairness and goodness) and differ ultimately only in point of reference and therefore language. In order to show this I will offer a brief survey of each mans journey toward the understanding and practice of justice, set up the apparent disagreement between their respective points of arrival, and finally offer (what I believe to be) a unifying explanation of their ultimate destination. In order to define justice Plato has Socrates (along with Glaucon) construct a theoretical city hoping that there will be more justice in the large thing, and (that in it) it will be easier to learn what it is (REP p.43). After a lengthy and difficult process Plato has Socrates and Glaucon agree that a city divided into three classes: workers (REP p.44-49), guardians (REP 4959), and rulers (REP 88-91), if well governed (REP p.95), will contain wisdom, courage, moderation, and of course, justice (REP p.103).

After recognizing the wisdom, courage, and moderation in the city Plato suggests that all that is left is justice. Justice is the power that makes it possible for them (wisdom, courage, and moderation) to grow in the city and that preserves them when theyve grown for as long as it remains there itself (REP p.108). What does this look like? A just city is one in which everyone must practice one of the occupations in the city for which he is naturally best suited. And doing ones own workis justice. And again, justice is every child, woman, slave, freeman, craftsman, ruler, and ruled each (doing) his own work and (not meddling) with what is other people's. And still, justice is having and doing of ones own (REP p.108-109). In other words, justice in a city is each person in the city acting and working in the way that he or she is most naturally suited to act and to work. At this point all that is left for Socrates and Glaucon to do is to step back and see how this translates into justice for an individual (REP p.110). Then a just man wont differ at all from a just city in respect to the form of justice; rather hell be like the city (REP p.110). Indeed, Plato has Socrates conclude, we do find this same thing in man. While a city will be just if rulers, guardians, and workers live in harmony, each doing his part alone, an individual will be just if his reason, spirit, and appetites live in harmony, each doing its part alone. Then, isnt to produce justice to establish the parts of the soul in a natural relation of control, one by another? (REP p.120) In a truly just individual the reason will govern as the spirit arouses emotion and the appetites hunger and thirst because that is what they are naturally best suited for (REP p.110115). In a truly just city philosopher kings will rule as the guardians guard and the workers work because that is what each are naturally best suited for. Further, Plato offers, only truly just individuals should be able to rule in just cities. And the truly just individuals will be older, the best from among the guardians, in love with the city, and (perhaps above all) convinced that what is best for the city is best for them (REP p.88-90). Therefore, Plato seems to be saying that only philosopher kings are truly able to be governed by their reason and are therefore the only truly just. Thus, in order for a city to be truly just each part must function as its nature has determined with the just philosopher kings on the top (who by nature must rule) ruling the rest (who by nature are to be ruled). The justice of the philosopher kings determines that they will govern with the best interest of everyone in mind and knowing this the guardians and workers will be grateful that they are being taken care of in the 3

best possible way. Therefore, when the entire soul (and city) follows the philosophic part, and there is no civil war in it, each part does its own work exclusively and is just, and in particular enjoys its own pleasures, the best and truest pleasures possible for it (REP p.258). Aristotle takes a different approach to defining justice (I will focus on Aristotles understanding of particular rather than universal justice as his understanding of universal justice seems to be purely theoretical). Rather than create a city he comes up with (undoubtedly due to Pythagorean influence) a concept defined by an equation. The concept being that excess and defect destroy the goodness of a thing while the mean preserves it (NE p.38). That is, too much or two little of a thing makes it bad. Or, as Proverbs (25:16-17) says, If you find honey, eat just enough--too much of it, and you will vomit. Seldom set foot in your neighbor's house-too much of you, and he will hate you. It is the mean that we are to strive for if we want to be virtuous and just (NE p.36-39). But, what sort of mean (is) justice (NE p.106)? As I said, Aristotle defines this mean by an equation. The equation being that there must be equality between the persons and between the things concerned (NE p.112). For Aristotle justice is simply taking and giving what is owed. And what is owed is determined according to merit in some sense (NE p.112). Each individual has a certain amount of merit whereby he or she is measured against all other individuals. According to Aristotle those individuals with more merit stack one side of the equation or the other. Justice is the balancing of this equation. This, then, is what the just is the proportional; the unjust is what violates the proportion (NE p.114). The next step for Aristotle (that is, the next step in his journey toward a political understanding of justice) is showing how to balance this equation. Aristotle seems to be saying that certain individuals by their merit have tipped the equation so much to one side that they must rule with the right to rule balancing the equation out. That is, the right to rule or the act of ruling is a rectificatory form of justice equaling out the naturally unreciprocal relationship between those of tremendous merit and those with less merit. Again, by simple nature of merit (Aristotle argues) certain individuals are unable to be in a reciprocal relationship with others (of significantly more or less merit). How do you balance an equation with diamonds on one side and sand on the other? How many grains of sand does it take to equal the worth of a diamond? In order for their to be justice then, between the two, the equation must be balanced out by taking from the lesser (i.e. the right not to be ruled) and giving it to the greater (i.e. the right to rule). 4

The rulers have the right to rule because of their superior merit. The ruled have lost their right not to be ruled because of their inferior merit (NE p.114-120). However, without paying careful attention, Aristotle seems to be saying on a different level that there is no justice between the ruler and ruled, For justice exists only between men whose mutual relations are governed by law(NE p.122). However, I believe that Aristotle is talking here about reciprocal justice. That is, there can be no reciprocal justice between ruler and ruled. Instead there is rectificatory justice whereby the ruler is always (by his ruling) balancing the equation and making rectification. Therefore, as with Plato, Aristotle has a special understanding of the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. The justice of a master and that of a father are not the same as the justice of citizensfor there can be no injusticetoward things that are ones ownas (they are) part of himself, and no one chooses to hurt himself (NE p.123)! Again, justice to Aristotle appears to me to be the balancing of a naturally unbalanced equation. Justice is taking from the (by nature) lesser and giving to the (by nature) greater in order to attain the proportional (NE p.114). As we have just seen, in order to define and explain justice, Plato sets up the analogy of the city and Aristotle that of an equation. Out of Plato we get a three-headed monster that must work together with itself. And out of Aristotle we get a formula that must balance itself. Plato teaches that justice is harmony of soul: reason, spirit, and appetites working together in their natural way such that each part enjoys its own pleasures, the best and truest pleasures possible for it (REP p.258). Aristotle teaches that justice is harmony of interactions: people working together in their natural way such that one who will distribute between himself and anotheras not to give more of what is desirable to himself and less to his neighbor (NE p.121). It seems that these two men are at odds with one another. To restate the apparent dilemma, Plato and Aristotle appear to have different views of what justice is. Fundamentally, it seems that they disagree on the meaning of the justice of citizens and the relation between ruler and ruled. There are two primary parts to this dilemma: 1) Each man appears to have a different definition of justice and 2) Each man appears to have a different understanding of how his definition will affect a city. Is this really the case however? Do Plato and Aristotle have a fundamentally different understanding of justice and its practice in a city? Again, I would suggest not. And I believe that a closer look at each of these two parts will be sufficient to show why. 5

First, do Plato and Aristotle have a fundamentally different definition of justice? When all the traveling is done and the destination has been reached it seems that Plato and Aristotle are not as far off as they first appeared to be. For Plato, justice in its most foundational form is having and doing what is ones own (REP p. 109). For Aristotle, justice in its most foundational form, is distributing not so as to give more of what is desirable to (oneself) and less to (ones) neighbor (NE p.121). When placed this close together, it is striking how closely these two men are even in their wording. Further, both men are concerned with justice as a virtue a part of a mans inside or his being. For Plato, justice isnt concerned with someones doing his own externally, but with what is inside him, with what is truly himself (REP p. 119). And for Aristotle, in order for a person to be just his actions must proceed from a firm and unchangeable character (NE p.34). Both men are also concerned with justice as an action a part of a mans outside or his way of living. Plato teaches that the principle that it is right for someone who is by nature a cobbler to practice cobblery and noting else, for the carpenter to practice carpentry, and the same for the others is a sort of image of justice (REP p.119). In other words, according to Plato, it is right for someone who is just to practice justice. Again, we see a parallel line of thinking in Aristotle: by doing the acts that we do in our transactions with other me we become just or unjust (NE p.29). And finally, rhetoric aside Plato and Aristotle both use the word and refer to the concept of justice many times in a very general way. In fact, most of the time (I would argue) Plato and Aristotle simply take justice to mean (as I have said) rightness or fairness or goodness (REP p.135, 138, 143, 160, 166, 173, 177, 191, 201, 210, 215, 225, 240, 245; NE p. 80, 101, 155, 192, 251, 253, 264 and, 266). Even in light of this brief inspection, it seems to me that the two men differ only in the most technical aspects of their understanding of justice (and then likely only in words rather than ultimate meaning). By golly! It seems that Simonides and Cephalus were closer than they thought when they suggested that justice is to give to each what is owed to him (to oneself and to others) (REP p.6). For, as Plato says, justice is having and doing what is ones own and to paraphrase Aristotle, justice is not taking more for yourself or giving less to others than is

deserved. And what does it mean to give and take what is deserved save, rightness and fairness and goodness? Finally, do Plato and Aristotle have a fundamentally different understanding of how justice will be practiced in a city? Again, when all the metaphorical meandering is done and the philosophical rubber really hits the streets will the relationships in Platoville (the Kallipolis) and Aristoletown (the Polis) look that different? There seems to be three components to this question: 1) Who ends up ruling for Plato and Aristotle?; 2) Who ends up being ruled?; and 3) What is the relationship between the two (ruler and ruled)? As I discussed above, for Plato the truly just individuals the ones who are governed by their reason will rule (REP p.88-90). That is, there are certain people who through natural ability, training, and hard work will be able to live in such a way that their souls will be in harmony. But what do these complete guardians look like? They will be the ones who achieve the finest blend of music and physical training and (impress) it on (their) souls in the most measured way (REP p.88). As I said above, they will be the ones who are older (REP p.89) and are therefore more experienced, they are the best of the guardians (REP p.89) and are therefore proven among their peers, they are among the most virtuous and will therefore look out for the good of the city as their own (REP p.89), and they are the best educated (REP p.92) and therefore most able to understand. Clearly, Plato understands the ruler of a city to be a just individual. And clearly, Plato understands a just individual to be someone who (through many levels of testing) has proven himself to be of great merit, able by nature and training to be ruled by reason. Who justly rules for Aristotle other than men of great merit, who by nature and training, are able to rule by reason (NE p.112)? Next, who is it that ends up being ruled for Plato and Aristotle? For Plato it is clearly the individuals who are not governed by their reason but rather by their spirit or appetites who are to be ruled. And for Aristotle the ruled are clearly those individuals who are of less merit. However, if what I have suggested is true, namely that for Plato only those of greater (or great) merit are able to be ruled by reason, then it is plain to see that both men understand the ruled to be those who by nature are empty in body and soul (REP p.256). And finally, what is the relationship prescribed by Plato and Aristotle between ruler and ruled? Each man appeals to justice and nature to define and describe this relationship. It seems 7

that justice in this case is to be understood as nothing more than anothers goodfor it does what is advantageous to another, either a ruler or a co-partner (NE p.108; REP p.258). That is, the ruler for both men is doing the ruled a favor by looking out for him. And the ruled is well for being looked after. It seems that nature for both Plato and Aristotle is to be understood as treating each other as they naturally deserve. And what does it mean to treat others as they naturally deserve save, acting rightly, and fairly and goodly? Again, even in light of this brief examination of the relationship between ruler and ruled it seems plain to me that any apparent disagreement between Plato and Aristotle is just that, apparent. Both men understand the ruler of a city to be an individual of naturally superior merit (which is largely defined by reason for Aristotle) and reason (which is great merit for Plato). Both men understand the ruled in a city to be individuals of naturally less merit and reason. And both men understand this relationship to be in the best interest of all parties involved. If upon closer examination we are able to see that Plato and Aristotle do, in fact, fundamentally agree both on the understanding of justice and its practice in a city why do they appear to have different views on these matters? It seems to me that the most obvious answer is the difference in the language and structure of their respective metaphors. Plato uses the metaphor of a three-tiered city and Aristotle uses the metaphor of an equation. Both men set up a structure into which justice must fit. That is, each man establishes a given framework whereby they will define justice. From this framework or metaphor (whether it is appropriate of not) a definition must come out. I am not smart enough to be able to tell if they are forcing a round peg to come out of a square hole, but I am able to see that the method that each man used to form his product must unquestionably have shaped the outcome and the language that was used to convey it!