Aristotle’s theory of justice represents one of the most powerful ideas in political philosophy. Unlike Plato, who developed a theory of an ideal state, Aristotle focused his attention on justice as a living reality which defines how people live, act, and govern together. His concept of justice still shapes our modern understanding of fairness, equality, and the moral purpose of law. And what exactly did Aristotle mean when he said that justice is “virtue in action”?
Justice, for Aristotle, is the foundation of every political community and the highest virtue of the state. He believed that a society can survive only when it is based on a just order. The idea of justice, according to Aristotle, connects ethics, law, and politics. Aristotle explained his idea of justice mainly in his books Nicomachean Ethics (Book V) and Politics. These works together show how moral virtue and political order depend on each other.
As a student of Plato, Aristotle was inspired by his teacher’s search for justice, but did not fully agree with his ideas. While Plato imagined an ideal and utopian society, Aristotle focused on real and practical conditions. His theory of justice reflects this difference because it is realistic, balanced, and rooted in social life.
In Aristotle’s view, justice is not just a moral value but “virtue in action.” It guides how individuals behave, how rulers govern, and how wealth and power are distributed. His concept of justice laid the foundation for Western political thought and continues to influence modern discussions on law, equality, and governance.
Aristotle’s Concept of Justice
Aristotle regarded justice as complete virtue in relation to others and as the foundation of political life. For him, justice was not only a moral value but also a public principle that maintains order and harmony in society. In Aristotle’s theory of justice, people should receive what they are due according to desert (merit), with the relevant standard set by the constitution of the city (for example, virtue, wealth, or freedom).
He famously said, “When separated from law and justice, man is the worst of all animals.” This line shows how closely Aristotle links justice with law, morality, and civic life. Without justice, society falls into chaos, and human beings lose direction and moral purpose.
Aristotle divided justice into two main types. These are
- Universal (General) Justice
- Particular Justice.
1. Universal Justice
Universal justice refers to complete virtue in relation to others (Nicomachean Ethics, Book V). It is called “universal” because it gathers all moral virtues when they are expressed in social and political life. In this broad sense, justice is lawfulness aimed at the common good.
A just person in this sense follows good laws, respects others, and acts for the welfare of the community. Put differently, universal justice represents the whole of moral goodness as it shows up in public life and institutions. It is the measure of how a citizen’s character aligns with the aims of a well‑ordered city.
For Aristotle, a law‑abiding citizen who acts for the common good is the true embodiment of universal justice. Such a person obeys laws not out of fear but because law educates and orients us toward living well together.
2. Particular Justice
Particular justice deals with fairness in specific relationships or transactions between individuals. Unlike universal justice, which covers the entire moral character, particular justice focuses on limited areas of social life — mainly how benefits are shared and how wrongs are repaired.
Aristotle further divided particular justice into two forms.
- Distributive Justice
- Corrective (or Rectificatory) Justice
a) Distributive Justice
Distributive justice concerns the fair distribution of wealth, honours, and public offices among members of society. It is based on proportionate (geometric) equality, meaning people should receive shares according to desert — the relevant standard of merit defined by the constitution (for instance, virtue in an aristocracy, wealth in an oligarchy, or freedom in a democracy). Some modern systems also consider “need,” but Aristotle’s emphasis is on desert shaped by the regime’s ideals.
Aristotle’s principle is simple yet profound: equals should be treated equally, and unequals unequally in proportion to their worth. This rule recognises differences in ability and contribution and ties rewards to the standards a community publicly upholds. Disputes about justice often arise because people disagree about which standard counts as the true measure of merit.
b) Corrective (or Rectificatory) Justice
Corrective justice focuses on restoring equality when an injustice has occurred, especially in private dealings such as theft, fraud, injury, or unfair advantage in exchange. Its aim is to remove the imbalance created by one person’s gain and another’s loss by bringing both sides back to level through restitution, compensation, or similar remedies.
Aristotle applies this idea in two settings: voluntary transactions (like sales, loans, or partnerships, where deceit or breach creates an unjust gain) and involuntary harms (like theft, assault, or damage to property). The judge’s task, according to Aristotle, is not to take revenge but to restore balance and fairness between the parties by applying arithmetic equality. Thus, corrective justice seeks moral and social restoration through law and fair judgment.
Justice, Equality, and Slavery
Aristotle linked justice closely with the idea of equality. He said, “It is unjust to treat equals unequally and equally unjust to treat unequals equally.” Justice, in his view, demands proportionate equality, rewards and treatment should match a person’s merit or contribution. However, Aristotle also accepted natural inequality. He believed that some people, such as slaves and women, lacked the rational capacity needed for full citizenship.
Therefore, he argued that treating them as equals to free men would be unjust. This belief formed the basis of his defense of slavery as a natural institution. While this view is rejected today, it reflects the hierarchical structure of Greek society and Aristotle’s effort to justify social stability through proportional justice.
Plato and Aristotle: Comparison of Theories of Justice
Aristotle’s theory of justice cannot be fully understood without referring to his teacher, Plato. Both philosophers treated justice as the highest virtue of the state and the individual, but they explained it in very different ways.
Plato’s View of Justice
In The Republic, Plato defined justice as harmony among the three parts of the soul: reason, spirit, and appetite. He also described it as harmony among the three classes of the state: rulers, soldiers, and producers.
For Plato, justice meant that each part performs its own function without interfering with others. He believed that when every class and individual performs their duty according to their nature, the result is a perfectly ordered and moral society. His idea of justice was deeply idealistic, focusing on a utopian state ruled by philosopher-kings who possess wisdom and virtue.
For more insight, Read- Plato’s Ideal state
Aristotle’s View of Justice
Aristotle admired Plato but rejected his abstract and utopian approach. He believed that justice must work within real political communities, not in an imagined perfect state. According to Aristotle, justice means giving each person what he deserves, a balance between equality and merit. He focused on practical and legal justice, where laws guide human behavior, and fairness operates through daily interactions, not through ideal forms. Thus, Aristotle’s justice is concrete and functional, closely tied to ethics, politics, and law.
Aristotle’s Approach vs Plato’s Theory of Justice
| Aspect | Plato’s Theory of Justice | Aristotle’s Theory of Justice |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Harmony in the soul and the state | Fair relations among citizens |
| Nature | Idealistic and moral | Practical and political |
| Orientation | Duty-based (performance of one’s function) | Rights-based (receiving what one deserves) |
| Concept | Justice as spiritual harmony | Justice as virtue in action |
| Level | Inner moral order | External social conduct |
| View of State | Utopian and collective | Realistic and individual-centered |
Did Aristotle Criticize Plato’s Theory of Justice?
Yes. Aristotle respected Plato as his mentor but criticized his theory for being too abstract and impractical. He argued that Plato’s idea of common property and family (as described in The Republic) was unrealistic because it ignored human emotions and personal attachments.
For Aristotle, justice cannot exist only in an imagined ideal state; it must operate in real political communities, governed by laws and social norms. He also found Plato’s definition of justice as harmony to be too vague and general. Aristotle made justice more concrete and measurable, linking it with law, equality, and moral virtue. In this way, he transformed Plato’s ideal philosophy into a practical theory of governance and ethics.
Why Aristotle Considered Justice Essential
For Aristotle, justice was the foundation of both moral life and political order. He believed that without justice, no society could survive or function in harmony. Justice, in his view, was what binds citizens together and gives meaning to the laws of the state. Aristotle saw man as a political being, one who finds purpose only within a community. But this community can exist only if individuals respect fairness and equality in their relations. That is why he famously said:
“When separated from law and justice, man is the worst of all animals.”
Justice gives direction to human actions and ensures that individual interests never overpower the common good. It transforms selfish desires into ethical cooperation, allowing the state to work for all rather than a few. For Aristotle, justice was not just one virtue among others, it was the complete virtue in action. It represented all moral goodness put into practice. Hence, justice is both a personal moral duty and the core principle of political life.
Criticism of Aristotle’s Theory of Justice
Aristotle’s theory of justice is one of the most influential ideas in Western political thought. Yet, it has faced many criticisms from later thinkers who questioned its limitations and practical weaknesses.
1. Dependence on Customary Law
Aristotle relied heavily on custom and tradition to decide who deserved what. He believed that social hierarchies, such as the difference between citizens, slaves, and women, were natural and justified. This made his idea of distributive justice biased toward the privileged classes. In ancient Greece, customary law did not treat all individuals equally, which is reflected in his theory.
2. Acceptance of Inequality
While Aristotle said “equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally,” he did not challenge the social inequalities of his time. He accepted slavery and male dominance as part of the natural order. This has led many modern scholars to argue that his theory lacked universality and failed to promote equality in the modern sense.
3. Limited Scope of Justice
Aristotle’s justice worked mainly within the boundaries of the Greek polis (city-state). It did not extend to all humanity or universal rights. In contrast, later thinkers like Cicero and modern humanists expanded the idea of justice to include universal moral law.
4. Ethical but Not Economic or Social
Aristotle treated justice as both an ethical and legal principle. However, he did not study its economic and social dimensions in depth. His idea focused more on moral virtue and fairness. It did not deal much with structural inequality or economic redistribution, which modern political economy later discussed.
5. Lack of Connection Between Ethics and Law
While Aristotle linked justice with virtue, he could not fully connect moral goodness with legal justice. His idea that justice is “virtue in action” remained mostly philosophical and was difficult to apply in complex legal systems.
6. Modern Relevance of Aristotle’s Theory of Justice
Despite these criticisms, Aristotle’s theory justice continues to be highly relevant even today, especially in discussions about fairness, law, and morality.
1. Foundation of Legal and Political Thought
Aristotle’s classification of justice includes distributive, corrective, and commutative types. These ideas still influence modern legal systems. For example, courts follow the principle of corrective justice when they punish wrongdoers or compensate victims.
2. Balance Between Equality and Merit
His idea that justice means giving each person their due is reflected in modern merit-based societies. Whether in jobs, education, or public honors, this principle guides fair distribution and recognition of talent.
3. Connection Between Ethics and Politics
Aristotle’s belief that justice is the “virtue of the state” links moral behavior with good governance. Modern democracies also rest on this principle that political power must serve the common good, not private interest.
4. Relevance to Social Harmony
In today’s divided societies, Aristotle’s emphasis on moderation, fairness, and law provides an important lesson: justice is not only about rules but also about maintaining balance and harmony within communities.
Many ideas in modern democracy come from Aristotle’s view of justice. He believed justice is the basis of political life. Concepts like equality before the law, fairness in distribution, and moral responsibility of rulers reflect his thought. His influence can be seen in modern constitutions and in debates on social justice.
7. Conclusion
Aristotle’s theory of justice transformed Plato’s ideal vision into a practical and realistic framework for political life. For Aristotle, justice was not a dream of a perfect world. It was a living principle that keeps society stable, fair, and moral. While his views reflected the limits of ancient Greek society, his clear distinction between different kinds of justice and his faith in law and fairness shaped modern ideas of governance, ethics, and social responsibility.