Difference Between Aristotle Justice And Distributive Justice

For centuries, the public’s perception of any and every type of justice has been distorted into whatever the mass media decides to show and portray. Today, popular culture and television romanticize what really happens in the legal aspects of their communities. People believe that what goes on in the offices and court rooms in television shows like Crime Scene Investigation and Law and Order are actually non-fiction. Although there is some sort of truth coming from these shows, they are not entirely correct. Most people do not voluntarily conduct their research about what is happening in our society today. They normally just watch what comes on their local news channel and call themselves informed. Do these things truly represent the idea of justice or should we look beneath the

However, instead of arguing in favor of absolute equality, he qualified it. Aristotle had this idea about proportionate equality and counter proportionate equality. The former was supposed as just, and the latter was said to be unjust. He thought that equals should be treated equally, while those who are “unequal” be treated unequally (Capeheart and Milovanovic 13). Aristotle was mostly interested in the political aspect of justice rather than the economic side. Because of this, he divided justice into two categories – distributive and retributive justice. Distributive justice is the equal distribution of goods in exchanges and transactions. It has to do with belief that a functioning society comes with both advantages and disadvantages. Distributive justice has to do with possessions acquired through someone’s income. Therefore, it only counts when what a certain person has came from labor work and not as a gift. It considers the capital received from hard work, but not charity or gains from relationships with others (Ryan xiii). This system of distribution is seen as an absolute version of