- Hang on tight, because things are about to get hairy. Aristotle wants to define the middle term for injustice. And it's going to involve mathematical equations.
- He posits that since the unjust are unequal, the middle term must be "equal." Therefore, the just are the "golden mean" in terms of social and political beings.
- But we can't stop there. Aristotle insists that the "just" involves four terms: two people involved and two "matters of concern."
- This means that there must be at least two people involved for a question of justice to arise, and that each of the two people brings an issue or need to the table.
- Everybody and everything in this equation must be equal—otherwise discord and inequality arises.
- In speaking of equal distribution, Aristotle isn't speaking of simple equality, where everyone gets the same exact thing. In this case, it's equality based on merit or worth.
- But what measures worth/merit? Aristotle proposes a certain mathematical proportion expressed as a ratio of the four terms.
- Properly speaking, the ratio is a geometric one—a proportion of lines.
- All of this is to say that the "just" is the middle term, and that it represents an equal distribution (based on the proper proportion) of things held in common.
- Things that are "unjust" or "unequal" defy this proportion—meaning that there is more on one side and proportionally less on the other.
- Aristotle says that this is an accurate reflection of actions in life: the unjust grab more of the good and those who suffer injustice are left with more than their fair share of the bad.
- If something (or someone) is to be considered just, he would need to have the lesser share of badness.
- In other words, he would have to have good things and behave fairly toward others.
- In order to right the wrongs of injustice, there has to be a correction of the unfair distribution that causes suffering.