equal to the amount one
had before it. 5.
The view is also held by some that simple Reciprocity is Justice. This was the doctrine
of the Pythagoreans, who defined the just simply as ‘suffering reciprocally with
another.’1
[2]
Reciprocity however does not coincide either with Distributive or with Corrective Justice
[3]
（although people mean to identify it with the
latter when they quote the rule of Rhadamanthys— “
An a man suffer even that which he did,
Right justice will be done）.
”
[4]
For in many cases Reciprocity is at variance with
Justice: for example, if an officer strikes a man, it is wrong for the man to strike him
back; and if a man strikes an officer, it is not enough for the officer to strike him, but
he ought to be punished as well.
[5]
Again, it makes a great
difference whether an act was done with or without the consent of the other party.2
[6]
But in the interchange of services Justice in the form of
Reciprocity is the bond that maintains the association: reciprocity, that is, on the basis
of proportion, not on the basis of equality. The very existence of the state depends on
proportionate reciprocity; for men demand that they shall be able to requite evil with
evil—
This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
View text chunked by:
- bekker page : bekker line
- book : chapter : section
Table of Contents:
Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 19, translated by H. Rackham. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1934.
The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.
Purchase a copy of this text (not necessarily the same edition) from Amazon.com