Critique of Aristotle’s theory of justice

If you contest a principle, it follows that you are contesting its consequences. If you disagree with Aristotle’s #metaphysics (the #principles of identity and causality), you’ll inevitably have to reject his theory of justice. According to Aristotle, justice is a #virtue (habitual practice) consisting of giving to each person his due. His definition rests on the principle of identity (that a man possesses moral and physical characteristics that define him) and causality (that he will behave according to those characteristics). If you accept Aristotle’s principles of identity and causality, it makes sense to give everyone his due because you are relying on causality. If the person has earned his wealth and reputation, it is just that those are protected. On the contrary, if he attempts to rob or harm someone else’s, it is fair that he is punished. The critique against #aristotle 's theory of justice constitutes a critique of his metaphysics. It represents a rejection of identity and causality. People who reject Aristotle’s definition of #justice are in fact saying that persons don’t build their own #character (no identity) and that, as a result, it is impossible or pointless to determine who has earned what (no causality). After Aristotle’s death in 322 BC, the next generation began to question the principles of identity and causality, and rejected Aristotle’s concept of justice. #epicurus (341-271 BC) completely distorted Aristotle’s idea of justice. Instead of viewing it as a major virtue, Epicurus did not even consider it worth pursuing. He talked extensively of pursuing #serenity and happiness, but defined them in a vacuum. He regarded them as individual experiences detached from morality, causality, or justice. Epicurus considered justice a tool (legal procedure) with the sole purpose of preventing and settling conflicts in society. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critique-of-aristotles-theory-of-justice/