Aristotle Justice And Unjust Analysis

According to Aristotle, justice is the only virtue that pertains to both oneself and to others. Most men can put justice into practice when it affects themselves but only the truly just are able to apply this principle to others as well. For this reason, justice is considered the most important virtue. After having defined justice in his Ethics, Aristotle adds that whether a man has acted justly or unjustly depends on whether or not his actions were voluntary. Can a person be blamed for an action done in ignorance or without malice? The following essay will describe the role that intent and mindset play in justice and whether or not a man who commits an unjust act is considered unjust. A person acts justly or unjustly depending on whether

If the boy had thrown the ball out of anger and impulse, then the action would be unjust but the boy himself would not be considered unjust. Here Aristotle believes that the victim is somewhat accountable for the actions taken because they stirred anger in the heart of the perpetrator. In the end the boy let his emotions get the better of him but upon further deliberation it is possible that the bot would have seen the error of what he was about to do and avoided the action all together. Anger is an emotion that all humans have, and in the same position any person’s judgement might be similarly clouded by anger. Despite an unjust action the boy would not be considered unjust himself but would still be held accountable for his reckless actions. He would only be considered unjust if the action had been thought-out beforehand with the intent to harm his counterpart. Premeditated actions are done with the deliberative intent to harm and in these cases the perpetrators are considered unjust and so are their actions. Some involuntary acts are defensible if done out of ignorance, while others that are done with intent are considered less so and will inevitably incur greater

Aristotle thought that if a person intentionally did harm to another person, with the complete knowledge of what they were doing, by what means they were doing it, and what the effect would be on the other person then their actions would be considered unjust. A problematic situation that comes to mind is the killing of Osama Bin Laden on May 2, 2011. The United States Navy Seals knew exactly what they were doing when they killed Osama, and were not coerced into killing him. At the same time the men were well intentioned and probably did not have any qualms about the actions taken that day. They stopped a known terrorist and in the process presumably saved innocent lives in the process. Furthermore, most Americans do not consider the actions of the seals to have been unjust and certainly do not believe them to be unjust people, if anything these men are considered heroes. Aristotle might answer this concern by saying that Osama deserves part of the blame for inciting the anger and ill-will of the American people by killing a multitude of American military and civilian targets. Nonetheless Aristotle would still put much of the blame on the Navy Seals and this still is not a view that most would agree with. Whether one agrees with this assertion or not, there is no denying that Aristotle’s guidelines are not