Justice and Virtue

Both Plato and Aristotle explore goodness - yet each does so from a different angle. To Plato, the question is justice - what is it? It is profitable to act upon? How does it affect society? Aristotle, on the other hand, questions virtue - what is it? Is it infinite or limited in scope? Is it rational? From these questions and the arguments from which they emerge I draw a sense of goodness as something conditional - both springing from and emerging contradictory to reason, by way of a balancing act. I draw this conclusion through evaluation of the “moral dilemma” idea of ethics - that humans are always, inevitably choosing between two wrongs, not a right and a wrong.

In Plato’s Republic, these two wrongs convolute justice. On the one hand, if we act justly toward others we may disadvantage ourselves; on the other, if we act in our own interests we may disadvantage others. Is either of these choices just? Both are profitable, yes, but only for one party at a time. The example that springs to my mind is prison sentencing. Last semester in Philosophy of Law I studied cases in which child molesters were given life sentences because they were a “danger to society.” I wondered if this was just. If a child molester changes his character and decides never to violate the law and others’ rights in such a way again, is it fair to keep him locked up? Or, if he is released back into society, is that fair to our society’s children? Justice, as defined by Socrates in Plato’s Republic is “following the laws,” yet as exemplified above there are grey areas under the umbrella of justice.

Aristotle poses a different version of a core, ethical “moral dilemma.” By arguing that there is a Golden Mean Aristotle asserts that there is a practicable balance between excess and deficiency, and that within the bounds of that mean is true virtue. Virtue in this sense is determined as a rational pursuit of “the good.” This definition is ambiguous and its meaning debatable. While reasonable people are capable of making rational choices in name of virtue, they are also capable of rationalizing their choices. As in Socrates’s argument about justice, pursuing virtue – i.e. generosity, honesty, patience, etc. – can lead human beings to sacrifice either in favor of their own interests or in favor of the interests of others. However, Aristotle’s depiction of virtue is as a balance - not necessarily as a choice between two absolute wrongs, but as a mean between the righter and the “wronger” options.

Plato and Aristotle agree in that both propose that humans should be united in their interests – that all should engage their choices toward the pursuit of the ultimate good. What is that good? That is the point on which their arguments stray apart. In my human experience, it is often challenging to be just or virtuous because I have my own self-interested prerogatives. While it is perhaps noble to pursue what is good, it is naturally human to interpret “goodness” as that which best suits the moral agent and/or will make him/her feel best. Feelings and passions are extremely convoluting forces in the pursuit of “the good.” Therefore, is “goodness” in its sincere form ever achievable? In what way is pursuing the good beneficial to both individual moral agents and society as a whole?