Aristotle, Aquinas, Plato, And Kant's Definition Of Justice

Aristotle, Aquinas, Plato, and Kant all have different definitions of what justice is. Aristotle believes that justice is something that is absolute but it also depends on the motives. He also believed that there are different kinds of justice. These different kinds of justice include punishment and exchange. Aristotle thought that the punishment should fit the crime. He also thought that exchange should be equal for services. Aquinas believes that justice is based off of what is the best for the common good. He also thought that justice is the difference between good and bad. This difference leads to the idea of justice being the most basic virtue. Plato believes that justice is balance. Justice, according to Plato, is avoiding chaos and keeping harmony in ones conscience. Kant believes that justice is based on our maxims. When being just, Kant believes that it is our duty to be truthful, preserve life, and develop or acknowledge our talents. Our society is not necessarily the most just society. There are many issues of inequality through out our communities and nationally. For the
Kant looks at human rights which makes his definition of justice the most relevant in our society today. Although, fraud and theft can be rationalized in an area of poverty as just, the duty of truth is still being violated. With truth being violated, an action is not just and the person has to answer to the court of conscience. Kant believes that if the person performing an unjust action has to live with their unjust action. The two ways that someone would have to live with their unjust action would either be by being reprimanded by the law or by having their unjust action weigh on their conscience until death when they are confronted by God or heaven. Kant’s definition of justice seems to be the most congruent definition of all of the philosophers discussed with regards to the laws of our society