Compare Aristotle justice theory to Machiavelli's justice theory - Research Paper Example

Therefore, this is never something of ruthless power grab, but focuses on the well-being of everyone. This expression of justice is extremely different from Aristotle’s point of view, who insists that justice is based on proportions, and anything less does not qualify to be just. Therefore, this paper supports that Aristotle’s definition of justice is more definite than Machiavelli’s definition of justice because it proves some fairness in its application and is easy to understand. According to Machiavelli, injustice is a stronger, at liberty, and more masterful than justice2.

He also implies justice as a significant aspect of liberty. This perception also proves that those in positions of political power dictate justice more than the peace loving and righteous citizens do. Aristotle, on the other hand, did not only describe justice on proportions, but specified that for it to prevail, equal cases should be treated alike, and unequal cases be treated differently. Therefore, being treated differently should be in direct proportions to the inequalities between the cases.

This, in other terms, is principally treating similar and t dissimilar dissimilarly3. Machiavelli, as an avid reader and follower of works of other prominent philosophers like Cicero, based his definition of justice from the early works of Cicero. He developed the definition of justice, based on Cicero’s ideas, as giving each person his or her dues4. However, ensuring everyone receives fair dues is extremely significant, and no one’s interests should ever be excluded unfairly or subjected to the self-interests of other people.

According to Machiavelli, justice is based on fairness, and everyone should have equal opportunities to explain and account for their sides. Machiavelli was also a philosopher, during the renaissance period, which is a time of revamping of the economies through new means of production. There was also a great insist on religion for most philosophers. His writing of the prince depicts the prince as a ‘Judeo-Christian man’ with absolute characteristics. It is to this that his description on justice had mixed feelings.

The prince was also the overall ruler who gave all final decisions on justice based on his personal thoughts. Aristotle believed that equality is based upon everyone, and even those in power should be treated on the same grounds. The fields of stressing equality were considered in terms of relevancy or irrelevancy of the case. The Aristotelian school of thought would allow a judge to give a ruling based on religion. The best example is a court case involving a Muslim and a Christian where a judge gave a ruling in favour of the Christian on a religion basis.

This verdict was based on the theory of treating similar cases similarly and the dissimilar cases dissimilarly. This aptly proves that Aristotle theory of justice was biased in some aspects because basing judgement on religion is explicitly irrelevant. Aristotle also reiterates that justice requires proportionality. This in simple terms means that every person is treated equally with respect to the distribution of benefits and rights of the society. Relevant reasons should be available for treating anyone unequal.

Therefore, this justifies inequalities, which relates to claiming justice based on certain provisions. Aristotle’s works, on social justice, have insisted on radical