Aristotle once said "How can we be good without being good already?" (C&C 238) This brings about a puzzle sounding much what came first the chicken or the egg?
             Is there a definite answer? If so, how can it be justified to all? Aristotle felt as though he could by giving a direct example and answer to his puzzle. He understood and compared it to certain crafts, but then he went into more depth and showed how crafts differ from virtues. By doing so he brings about his ultimate answer, one that clearly states that to be just one has to be through as well.
             Aristotle says that to be just one cannot be just by accident. If someone was to come across a wallet and then give it to someone who said it was his or hers, for example. If by chance it was his or hers then that wouldn't be just because it was done unknowingly. For it to be just the person would have had to have proof of the ownership. Though the person was instructed to return the wallet this still would not be just. Aristotle used the example of a grammarian, who must "both produce something grammatical and produce it in the way in which a grammarian produces it...." (C&C 238) For the return of the wallet to be just, one would have to do as the law states. This can be difficult as the exact wording of law is not common knowledge.
             The only problem with the above example is that it was paralleled with a craft. Aristotle says that there are different standards for crafts and virtues. He says that there are rules for virtues that must be followed. He says that you have to be just throughout the action, not just in the beginning or at the end. It has to be done in a way that you had to choose between doing it and not doing it. I disagree with Aristotle in some aspects of his statements. He may be a little smarter than me, but his whole thought process does not work. If the person "must know he is doing a virtuous action", (...