Aristotle named the distinction between proportional equality and numerical equality.
Aristotle, in his work, notably Nicomachean Ethics, discusses different forms of justice and equality. He differentiates between two types: numerical equality and proportional equality. Understanding this distinction is crucial for grasping Aristotle's theory of justice and its applications.
- Numerical Equality: This refers to an absolute, arithmetical sameness. Every individual receives the exact same amount, regardless of their individual characteristics or contributions. This is also known as simple equality.
- Proportional Equality: This concept acknowledges differences between individuals and distributes resources or rewards based on merit, contribution, need, or other relevant factors. The allocation is not equal in quantity but is fair in relation to the specific characteristics being considered. It aligns with the modern concept of equity. This principle ensures that individuals receive what they deserve based on their respective qualities.
Here's a table summarizing the key differences:
| Feature | Numerical Equality | Proportional Equality |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Absolute, arithmetical sameness | Allocation based on merit/need/contribution |
| Distribution | Equal distribution to all | Unequal, but fair, distribution |
| Basis | No consideration of individual factors | Consideration of relevant individual factors |
| Modern Equivalent | Literal equality | Equity |
For example, consider a teacher distributing bonus points. Numerical equality would give every student the same number of points, regardless of their performance. Proportional equality would give more points to students who performed better, reflecting their effort and achievement.
Aristotle's distinction between numerical and proportional equality highlights the complexities of justice. He advocates for proportional equality as a fairer and more effective way to allocate resources and responsibilities in society. He argues that treating unequals equally can lead to injustice, making proportional equality a cornerstone of his philosophical framework.
