Thrasymachus from Plato’s Republic and Machiavelli in his treatise, The Prince, take on the challenge to define justice and conclude that justice is nothing more than what power says it is. This idea is opposed by Aristotle who believes justice is independent of what the ruler says. In Politics, Aristotle argues that justice is truest in the form of a polity, which encompasses the virtues of commutative, retributive, and distributive justice.
In Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus defines justice as a measure of strength. He argues that each ruling power sets up laws for the advantage of itself, whether the form of government is tyrannical, democratic, or aristocratic. Once a set of rules has been established for each government, the leaders prepare codes of punishment for those who do not conform or for those who pose a threat to the benefits of the rulers, so justice becomes not only what is advantageous to the stronger, but also disadvantageous to the weaker. This sophist’s theory is not so much a definition of justice,
…show more content…
His evidence is provided by explaining the three constitutions of political justice that each have unjust forms. The first constitution is a monarchy. Aristotle claims that if power controlled justice, it would result in a state of tyranny. Giving full sovereignty to either the governing body or laws allow for the possibility for abusing power. When a monarchy rules like a dictator, kingship evolves into tyranny. This means the ruler makes laws for the sole benefit of himself. The effect of this includes completely ignoring commutative justice and abusing retributive justice. Distributive justice, in Aristotle’s opinion, is non-existent even within a monarchy, because too much power is granted to a single person, ultimately taking on the form of a tyranny periodically throughout