There is no Justice.

Presuming that we hold true the claims of The Philosopher, Aristotle, is it possible that justice (in his definition) does not exist at all? Aristotle proposes that justice is a relative state in which every member of a society receives the proportion of “wealth” or “value” that he deserves. This is to say that those who are more contributive to the society deserve more than those who are not, or who take away from it, correct? Expanding on this idea, then, Aristotle assumes what I refer to as a unified conscience. By this I mean that Aristotle’s definition of justice can only stand true if every member of the society has the same morals and values for everything – even down to currency. Allow me to be more specific.

                Let’s take the example used in class with the shoes and the crop of corn. Imagine yourself as a master shoemaker. You regularly make your product for common sales, but spend your spare time throughout the year creating a masterpiece. To you, your year’s worth of hard work might seem deserving of greater reward than a typical pair of shoes, but to other members of your society all you have made is another pair of shoes, not worthy of the farmer’s annual crop. We now reach the breaking point of Aristotle’s theory of justice. If justice is a relative accounting of appropriately proportioned “wealth”, who decides what the value of any object is?

                You may believe that you deserve more than many wealthier people in the world. I dare to say everyone has this belief at some point in time. Without it, there would be no one striving for greater successfulness. So, if we all have different opinions of what someone relatively deserves, how can we come to a completely just resolution? A more black and white example is this: a man intentionally kills his family because they turn their backs on him as a father and husband. Does he deserve to lose all of his rights of birth and die, or does he deserve to live? This question can never be answered unanimously because there are varying ideas of relativity.

                Therefore, what Aristotle proposes (justice based on relativity) is not justice at all. It is but elected order. The shoemaker will never see justice, for the product he has put his year into will not receive the same value as the farmer’s crop. We need food to survive on a day to day basis, but walking around barefoot could lead to cuts, infections, and ultimately death. So is Aristotle proposing that justice is actually accepting whatever the majority of a society considers to be just and ignoring the minority who are burdened with injustice? This implies that justice can only exist when there is an unjust component to it. Is that true justice?