Equality Versus Efficiency, Aristotle’s Foundation of Legal Theory

...

of the same virtue.” To explain law in terms of economics, choices must be reasoned by way of efficiency not equality and moral justice. Economist and those in the Aristotelian school of thought agree on the fact that prices need to correlate with need, scarcity and cost, which are perpetually changing. Aristotle also understood the importance of job specialization, which fosters an efficient way for civilizations to trade. Aristotle stated, “The shoemaker does not exchange with the shoemaker but with the house builder.”

It has been taught for centuries that need, scarcity and cost are the only factors imperative for consideration when making a decision using economics. The fact that economic legal reasoning disregards the importance of basic moral principle and equality is proof that economic reasoning alone cannot be the foundation of private law. Aristotle’s concepts of equitableness in exchange and commutative justice are fundamental to determine what is legally just. “A contract of exchange is an act of commutative justice in which the value of what each party gives should equal that of what he receives, thereby preserving each party’s share of purchasing power.” Even if the result of an economic legal decision happens to be morally just, it was determined not because it was fair and ethical but for the simple reason that a cost was avoided.

In conclusion, there is a certain element of morality present when dealing with a wrongdoer and victim, which is modernly know as tort law. This element of morality is also present for enforcing rules regarding the lawful exchange of goods services and land, which is modernly known as contract law. Both tort and contract were conceived using Aristotle’s school of thought and the fall under the umbrella of private law. Aristotle’s distinctions regarding commutative justice and combined with the concept of fairness and equality is fundamental to this essential element of morality and is the root of private law that people are familiar with today.  

Bibliography

Aristotle, Robert C. Bartlett, and Susan D. Collins. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011)

Chroust, Anton-Hermann. Osborn, David L. “Aristotle’s Conception of Justice”, Notre Dame

Law Review 17, 2. (1942).

Gordley, James. “The Just Price: The Aristotelian Tradition and John Rawls.” European

Review of Contract Law (2015)

Gordley, James. “The Moral Foundations of Private Law” American Journal of Jurisprudence

47, 1. (2002)

Zimmerman, Reinhard. “The Law of Obligations Roman Foundations of the Civil Law Tradition” (Oxford University Press, 1996)