Impact of Aristotle’s theory of justice

The justice definition given by Aristotle in “Nicomachean Ethics” is simple, but accurate and profound. A person behaves in accordance with justice only if he has “an habitual disposition to render to each person his due.” The definition demands giving consistently and regularly to each person his due, not only occasionally, not only from time to time. Aristotle’s predecessors such as Socrates (469-399 BC) had not been able to come up with such a complete definition. Despite his focus on self-examination and introspection, Socrates had failed to give a precise meaning to the concept of justice. He had talked about the need of “knowing oneself” in order to “lead an examined life” as prerequisites to happiness, but in no way had he provided practical advice about justice. Instead of concentrating on essential features (as Aristotle had done), Socrates had focused on the method. By means of debates, he had tried to identify the nature of justice and ethics, but with little success. Socrates had theorised that ignorance is the main cause of injustice, but without giving any proof for his statement; in fact Socrates had just made up the link between ignorance and lack of justice. It only takes a second to reveal the falsehood of Socrates’s theory. Look at history and you’ll find thousands of examples proving that injustices and abuses are frequently committed in full knowledge of their dire consequences. Thus, it is no wonder that Socrates’ ideas about justice have made zero impact on later generations. If anything, they have confused people and led them in the wrong direction. In contrast, Aristotle’s theory of justice has shaped Western civilisation. A definition of justice similar to Aristotle’s was coined by Ancient Roman jurists and constitutes the backbone of modern legal systems. The Roman jurist and senator Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) believed in the existence of natural law, a universal set of moral principles inherent in human nature and common to all peoples on earth. Cicero argued that fundamental laws are discoverable by all men through reason. He asked to apply them universally to all human beings because they form the basis of justice. Like Aristotle, Cicero connected justice with virtue. He saw justice as an essential moral virtue that goes hand in hand with wisdom, courage, and temperance. Cicero also underlined the need for steadiness in practising the virtue of justice. Unless justice is a continuous part of one’s moral character, one should not regard that person as just. What does justice consist of specifically? Aristotle had not made reference to natural law, but the universality requirement was implicit in his definition. Cicero linked his definition of justice to natural law. In his eyes, just human laws should reflect natural law. When laws or court decisions deviate from natural law, they are unjust and should be rejected and condemned. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/impact-of-aristotles-theory-of-justice/