Aristotle 's Views On Morality And Justice Essay

If the law is not fair to all, then it is not fair to any. Everyone is crafted from different groups and cultures, but society all has something in common – the soul. Society must realize everyone is not the same, and everyone has a different set of guidelines in which they adhere to. These guidelines must follow this simple idea of just vs. unjust laws.

Aristotle outlined his theory of Virtue Ethics in his book Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle focused his idea of ethics on agents rather than acts. His main idea is focused on the idea of human character- how can you be a better person? In fact, Aristotle once said: “For we are enquiring not in order to know what virtue is, but in order to become good, since otherwise our enquiry would be of no use.” Aristotle is given the credit for developing the idea of virtue ethics, but many of Plato's cardinal values influenced his ideas. Virtue Ethics is focused on the person's actions, not the consequences of that action. Aristotle believed if you had good moral values, then your actions would be "good" in theory. Rather than defining good actions,

However, he then distinguishes between just and unjust laws, insisting that an individual has both a right and a responsibility to break unjust laws. He defines just laws as those that uphold human dignity, and unjust laws as those that “degrade human personality.” Unjust laws, he argues, hurt not only the oppressed, but also the oppressors, since they are given a false sense of superiority.

As per above analysis, therefore, I strongly agree with assertion that laws can be classified as just and unjust. Yet, a far more important issue to talk about later is what people should do in face of just of unjust laws.

King brings in the question, what is a just and unjust law? A just law is one that promotes good morals and is followed by both the majority as well as the minority of society. Martin Luther King Jr. defines an unjust law as:

A married couple, both addicted to drugs, is unable to care for their infant daughter. She is taken from them by court order and placed in a foster home. The years passed. She comes to regard her foster parents as her real parents. They love her as they would their own daughter. When the child is 9 years old, the natural parents, rehabilitated from drugs, begin court action to regain custody. The case is decided in their favor. The child is returned to them, against her will. Do ethics support the law in this case? Discuss.

The use of just laws was first abided by Dr. King in his “Letter From Birmingham Jail.” In this letter, he mentions the necessity of just laws in society and how individuals are morally obliged to follow them. He also makes a clear distinction between “just” and “unjust” laws, further advocating his beliefs. Dr. King defines the two different laws in his interpretation of what they actually mean in society. A just law is a human-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. In other words, a law that can uplift the personality of an individual is a law that is just. Also, citizens also have their moral responsibility in a constitutional democratic society to obey and abide by the laws of the country. In comparison to just

A law is said to be just when it is ordained for the common good, does not exceed the power of the lawgiver and any burdens put on the subjects are done proportionally and equally and aim for the common good (Aquinas in Dimock, ed., 2002, p.20). In comparison an unjust law can be contrary to the human good and additionally opposing to the divine good. A law can conflict with the human good in one of three ways; either through its end, author or its form. A lawmaker issues an unjust law according to its end when he “imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory” (Aquinas in Dimock, ed., 2002, p.20). If a lawmaker imposes a law that favors the leader but at the same time imposes unfair burdens on the whole of society, it can be assumed that he is working for his glory and selfish desires.

Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.

Aristotle believes that there are two kinds of virtue, one being intellectual and the other being moral virtue. He states that Intellectual virtue comes from being taught meaning we’re not born with it. Moral virtue on the other hand we develop as we grow and gain an understanding of life. “The stone which by nature moves downwards cannot be habituated to move upwards, not even if one tries to train it by throwing it up ten thousand times” (N.E. II.1) Right there he is talking about how if you are designed to do one thing, it is impossible to do the opposite no matter how hard you force it. He talks about how we gain our virtues by practicing them and using them on a regular basis. That is how we learn

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explores virtues as necessary conditions for being happy. A virtuous person is a person with a disposition toward virtuous actions and who derives pleasure from behaving virtuously. Aristotle distinguishes between two types of human virtue: virtues of thought and virtues of character. Virtues of thought are acquired through learning and include virtues like wisdom and prudence; virtues of character include bravery and charity, which are acquired by habituation and require external goods to develop. As a consequence, not all people can acquire virtues of character because not all people have the external goods and resources required to develop that disposition.

Aristotle found that there are two kinds of virtues of the soul. First, there are virtues of thought, such as wisdom. Next, there are virtues of character, such as generosity. The main focus of his virtue ethics lies in the virtues of character. Aristotle assumed that these virtues are learned through habit. For example, whereas intellectual virtue may arise from reading a book, the adoption of virtuous character is inherited solely by practice. Therefore, it is through a person's upbringing that moral virtues are cultivated, and it is through the habit of thinking virtuously that one can excel towards happiness.

Many philosophers through history have dealt with happiness, pleasure, justice, and virtues. In this essay there will given facts on virtues between two philosophers who have different views on the topic. Aristotle and Kant have two totally different views on virtue, one being based on the soul and how you character depicts you virtue and the other which is based of the fact that anyone has a chance of being morally good, even bad people. There is a lot of disagreement between Aristotle and Kant, which has examples to back the disagreements. Aristotle takes virtue as an excellence, while Kant takes it more to being a person doing something morally good in the society and for them as a person. One similarity between these two philosophers though, is that these two descriptions of virtue lead back to happiness in the individual. At the end of this essay, the reader should be capable of understanding that Aristotle’s theory is more supported than Kant’s theory. Of course, explanations for both sides will be given thoroughly throughout this comparison.

For Aristotle, justice is a virtue but unlike the other virtues he discusses in his Ethics. Whereas each virtue was defined as the mean between two vices, justice is not the mean of two vices since injustice, the opposite of justice, is but only one extreme. Justice is the mean state of people having what they deserve. Injustice occurs when people have either too much or too little. Following Aristotle's definition of justice, a theft of one hundred dollars would result in the thief's gain of one hundred dollars and the victim's equal and unjust loss of one hundred dollars.

This contradiction can perhaps be resolved within Aristotle’s analysis of justice in Book V. Here he makes evident that justice as a virtue is inherently intertwined with law-abidingness, so much so that he calls lawfulness “complete virtue” (1129b28). Yet, Aristotle also provides an extensive critique of laws. Giorgi Areshidze examines this critique in his essay, “Aristotle’s Critique of Justice, the Rule of Law and the Common Good in Book V of the Nicomachean Ethics.” According to Areshidze, “laws are deficient because they are expressed as universals and therefore are likely to fail to secure justice in particular cases (1137b13), and above all because at the core of laws rest deeply flawed assumptions about human beings: laws require penalties because they assume that the lawbreaker gets away with too much good, and must therefore be subjected to punishment through which “the judge tries to take away his gain and restore the equilibrium” (1132a8).” As a result of this assumption, Areshidze states, “all