Is Justice based on Equality?
-
- Posts: 782
- Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am
Re: Is Justice based on Equality?
Nor even about retribution versus restitution.
What I think you're asking about is the very notion of just punishment, whether this be retribution or restitution or some combination thereof.
How and why does wrongdoing justify punishment ? And how do we know ? Noting that many punishments are acts that we would consider wrong if applied to an innocent person.
I don't have a neat answer.
Is the desire to punish wrongdoing universal among humans ? How can one recognise that murder, rape and robbery are wrong and not want to see such acts punished ?
Sure, where there is a complex dispute with wrongs committed on both sides, it's possible to think that both sides have already punished each other enough, such that it's not worth going into all the detail of who did what to whom and why. But that's not doubting the general principle that wrongdoing deserves punishment.
Can we do better than say that this just is a moral fact ?
- Leontiskos
- Posts: 695
- Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas
Re: Is Justice based on Equality?
Yes, that's exactly right. And whether commutative justice depends in any way on some form of equality.Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 9th, 2022, 5:57 pm @Leontiskos , I think what you're asking is not about incarceration versus other forms of punishment. Still less about incarceration combined with efforts at rehabiltation, where I wouldn't disagree with @Sy Borg .
Nor even about retribution versus restitution.
What I think you're asking about is the very notion of just punishment, whether this be retribution or restitution or some combination thereof.
How and why does wrongdoing justify punishment ? And how do we know ? Noting that many punishments are acts that we would consider wrong if applied to an innocent person.
It may be that such acts are wrong in a twofold way: first insofar as they treat human beings in a way that human beings ought not be treated by their very nature, and second by breaking the relation of equality which ought to obtain between oneself and others. If this is right then the punitive response must include both pain for the wrongdoing, and a restoration of equality between the two parties.
But in many cases these two aspects are tightly intertwined. For example, to rob someone is always at the same time to establish a relation of inequality (for equality of transaction at least requires mutual consent, and the thief takes property in a way that is contrary to the consent of the victim).
It is something like a moral fact. Again, Aquinas terms the principle of desert "contrapassum," and the underlying principle is symmetrical, "He who does good deserves good, and he who does evil deserves evil." This is very similar to the Indian notion of Karma.Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 9th, 2022, 5:57 pmSure, where there is a complex dispute with wrongs committed on both sides, it's possible to think that both sides have already punished each other enough, such that it's not worth going into all the detail of who did what to whom and why. But that's not doubting the general principle that wrongdoing deserves punishment.
Can we do better than say that this just is a moral fact ?
Earlier in the thread I presented an account of retributive justice as something based on the equality of action and passion, and you gave a short reply:
So what do you find unconvincing about Aquinas' account? And do you have an alternative that you prefer?
Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
-
- Posts: 782
- Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am
Re: Is Justice based on Equality?
And if it's wrong then the two things are unconnected - there are wrongs committed (or not) between people who were never equal in the first place, and absence of equality without either party having wronged the other.Leontiskos wrote: ↑May 9th, 2022, 9:03 pm It may be that such acts are wrong in a twofold way: first insofar as they treat human beings in a way that human beings ought not be treated by their very nature, and second by breaking the relation of equality which ought to obtain between oneself and others. If this is right then the punitive response must include both pain for the wrongdoing, and a restoration of equality between the two parties.
Punishment is a transaction which often does not involve mutual consent, and where there is a lack of symmetry between the two parties. The question you're asking me and I'm struggling with is something like "what is it about wrongdoing that justifies this non-consensual asymmetric transaction ? A transaction which, in the absence of that original wrongdoing we would call unjust and wrong ?"For example, to rob someone is always at the same time to establish a relation of inequality (for equality of transaction at least requires mutual consent, and the thief takes property in a way that is contrary to the consent of the victim).
It's not about equality. If I in a moment of carelessness walk into a tree and give myself a black eye, that doesn't justify me in giving you a black eye to restore equality.
If we go fishing together and you catch two and I catch none, that doesn't justify me in stealing one of yours.
But if my black eye is because you pushed me into a tree and my lack of fish is because you took without consent all the bait that I'd gathered, then some proportionate punishment such as blacking your eye or taking one of your fish seems like a candidate for just retribution and restitution respectively.
Sorry - I've not been clear. I'm in favour of proportionality between the redress and the wrongdoing. If - in a way I struggle to explain - there is something about wrongdoing, something inherent in breaking a moral rule, that justifies punishment, then it seems entirely unsurprising to conclude that a small transgression justifies only a small punishment and a severe transgression a severe punishment.Earlier in the thread I presented an account of retributive justice as something based on the equality of action and passion, and you gave a short reply:
So what do you find unconvincing about Aquinas' account? And do you have an alternative that you prefer?
What's good about "an eye for an eye" is that measured proportionality. (What's bad about it is the bloodthirstiness, the enthusiasm for causing pain and disfigurement. You'd hope that intelligent people could come up with some agreed form of restitution that would be of greater long-term benefit/satisfaction to the victim as well as being less painful to the perpetrator - a win-win improvement over that baseline).
What I'm mainly unconvinced about is the language. The notion of "a relative part of justice", as if you're adding another chapter (volume?) to the rulebook. The imprecision of "equality", when other terms (? maybe "mutuality" ?) express the particular shade of meaning better, without implying a Great Crusade to make the world a more Equal place.
As well as the bit about the greatness of princes....
- Leontiskos
- Posts: 695
- Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas
Re: Is Justice based on Equality?
I am currently of the opinion that they are connected, but that they are two related aspects of a single act of injustice. Do you have a counterexample where someone commits a wrong or an injustice without at the same time asserting a false form of inequality over the person(s) they are victimizing?Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 10th, 2022, 7:57 pmAnd if it's wrong then the two things are unconnected - there are wrongs committed (or not) between people who were never equal in the first place, and absence of equality without either party having wronged the other.Leontiskos wrote: ↑May 9th, 2022, 9:03 pm It may be that such acts are wrong in a twofold way: first insofar as they treat human beings in a way that human beings ought not be treated by their very nature, and second by breaking the relation of equality which ought to obtain between oneself and others. If this is right then the punitive response must include both pain for the wrongdoing, and a restoration of equality between the two parties.
Of course there are certain inequalities that obtain between persons, <as I pointed out to Sculptor>. The point there is that the manager still owes the common laborer a proportion of equality, which is a different proportion than that which he owes a fellow manager.
Yes, that is a big piece of the puzzle.Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 10th, 2022, 7:57 pmThe question you're asking me and I'm struggling with is something like "what is it about wrongdoing that justifies this non-consensual asymmetric transaction ? A transaction which, in the absence of that original wrongdoing we would call unjust and wrong ?"Leontiskos wrote: ↑May 9th, 2022, 9:03 pmFor example, to rob someone is always at the same time to establish a relation of inequality (for equality of transaction at least requires mutual consent, and the thief takes property in a way that is contrary to the consent of the victim).
Yes, but punishment is by definition contrary to the will of the person being punished. That is how the balance is restored, for just as acting contrary to another's will is an essential part of injustice, so punishing contrary to the malefactor's will is an essential part of just retribution. When someone frustrates another's reasonable will, their will must itself be frustrated. Aquinas says:
"Merit implies a certain equality of justice: hence the Apostle says (Romans 4:4): "Now to him that worketh, the reward is reckoned according to debt." But when anyone by reason of his unjust will ascribes to himself something beyond his due, it is only just that he be deprived of something else which is his due; thus, "when a man steals a sheep he shall pay back four" (Exodus 22:1). And he is said to deserve it, inasmuch as his unjust will is chastised thereby" (Summa Theologiae III.49.6.c).
If a proportionate punishment is required, the how can it not be about equality?Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 10th, 2022, 7:57 pmIt's not about equality. If I in a moment of carelessness walk into a tree and give myself a black eye, that doesn't justify me in giving you a black eye to restore equality.
If we go fishing together and you catch two and I catch none, that doesn't justify me in stealing one of yours.
But if my black eye is because you pushed me into a tree and my lack of fish is because you took without consent all the bait that I'd gathered, then some proportionate punishment such as blacking your eye or taking one of your fish seems like a candidate for just retribution and restitution respectively.
When someone commits an injustice, they must pay a price which is proportionate to the injustice they have committed. In your first two cases no injustice has been committed; in your latter two cases an injustice has been committed.
I am not saying that every inequality reflects an injustice, but rather that every injustice involves a false assertion of inequality, and that just retribution rectifies this inequality.
Okay. I agree.Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 10th, 2022, 7:57 pmSorry - I've not been clear. I'm in favour of proportionality between the redress and the wrongdoing. If - in a way I struggle to explain - there is something about wrongdoing, something inherent in breaking a moral rule, that justifies punishment, then it seems entirely unsurprising to conclude that a small transgression justifies only a small punishment and a severe transgression a severe punishment.Leontiskos wrote: ↑May 9th, 2022, 9:03 pmEarlier in the thread I presented an account of retributive justice as something based on the equality of action and passion, and you gave a short reply:
So what do you find unconvincing about Aquinas' account? And do you have an alternative that you prefer?
Well, the Biblical law of the lex talionis was given as a limit, not as a necessity. The idea was, "The victim deserves an eye for an eye, and not more than that." For Aquinas virtuous anger desires justice/retribution in the correct proportion. Vicious anger, which is called hatred, desires the malefactor to suffer beyond his just deserts.Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 10th, 2022, 7:57 pmWhat's good about "an eye for an eye" is that measured proportionality. (What's bad about it is the bloodthirstiness, the enthusiasm for causing pain and disfigurement. You'd hope that intelligent people could come up with some agreed form of restitution that would be of greater long-term benefit/satisfaction to the victim as well as being less painful to the perpetrator - a win-win improvement over that baseline).
But yes, Aristotle and Aquinas are clear that the punishment often does not fall under the same species of the offense. For example, we use monetary fines for all sorts of different offenses.
Yes, well this is a semantic issue. As I have explained, I think it is accurate to say that contrapassum is based on a form of equality, but if you insist we could use a different word.Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 10th, 2022, 7:57 pmWhat I'm mainly unconvinced about is the language. The notion of "a relative part of justice", as if you're adding another chapter (volume?) to the rulebook. The imprecision of "equality", when other terms (? maybe "mutuality" ?) express the particular shade of meaning better, without implying a Great Crusade to make the world a more Equal place.
Contrapassum comes from the Greek ἀντιπεπονθός (link): "reciprocity, requital, suffering in turn, karma."
I used "managers" instead for ye Egalitarians.
Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
-
- Posts: 782
- Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am
Re: Is Justice based on Equality?
If I attempt to sneak into a football match without paying for a ticket, or eat in the Members Only dining room at a club in which I am not a member, or lie about my age in order to gain a discount on a purchase, then I act unjustly. I claim more than my due.Leontiskos wrote: ↑May 10th, 2022, 11:58 pm I am not saying that every inequality reflects an injustice, but rather that every injustice involves a false assertion of inequality, and that just retribution rectifies this inequality.
But all of these involve a false assertion of equality with the group of people to whom such benefits are due. And that claimed equality is as much a characteristic of the act as the claimed inequality from the non-entitled group.
The wrongness of the act lies in the falseness, not in the extent of equality or inequality involved.
If you think it wrong for a manager to address a fellow-manager as if he were a labourer, what of the labourer who addresses a manager as if he were a fellow-labourer ?I used "managers" instead for ye Egalitarians.
On the semantic point, it seems to me that you are inadvertently equivocating, jumping between meanings of "equality":
- equal weight of crime and punishment,
- equality between two terms in a proposition that A is B or that each A should be B,
- equal human-ness of persons,
- equal social status amongst persons.
Etc
In an effort to imply some underlying unifying explanatory principle of Equality (with a capital E) which I argue does not exist.
Rather, justice is related to truth.
- Leontiskos
- Posts: 695
- Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas
Re: Is Justice based on Equality?
I don't think this really functions as counterargument, as the transgression is still a matter of equality (whether a false assertion of equality or a false assertion of inequality). So then I should perhaps adjust my claim to say that, "Every injustice involves a false assertion of equality or inequality."Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 11th, 2022, 3:32 amIf I attempt to sneak into a football match without paying for a ticket, or eat in the Members Only dining room at a club in which I am not a member, or lie about my age in order to gain a discount on a purchase, then I act unjustly. I claim more than my due.Leontiskos wrote: ↑May 10th, 2022, 11:58 pm I am not saying that every inequality reflects an injustice, but rather that every injustice involves a false assertion of inequality, and that just retribution rectifies this inequality.
But all of these involve a false assertion of equality with the group of people to whom such benefits are due. And that claimed equality is as much a characteristic of the act as the claimed inequality from the non-entitled group.
Recall that your claim in the OP is the idea that justice is not based on any form of equality.
But why think such a thing? You give no argument.
The falseness is precisely a falseness of equality, so it makes no sense to try to separate it from equality. Further, if there is no equality/inequality, then how can there be a false equality or a false inequality? And what does the the degree of the transgression depend on, if not the extent to which equality was falsified? The slave owner is asserting a very strong (and especially false) form of inequality between himself and the slave, and this is part and parcel of why his act is so wrong. If slaves really were non-human and the asserted inequality were true rather than false, then the slave owner would not be committing an injustice.
It is unjust for the same essential reason. He is transgressing the principle of equality (whether he treats unequal things as equal, or whether he treats equal things as unequal).
They are related uses, since the malefactor's punishment restores the just equality between himself and his victim, and the punishment is proportionate to the degree to which he asserted a false equality/inequality between himself and his victim (and the severity of the transgression is also intrinsically related to the degree of this transgression of equality). In any case, the fact that there are so many nuanced dependencies of equality in justice and injustice does not at all support your thesis that justice and equality are unrelated. Rather, it supports the thesis that justice and equality are related in all sorts of multifarious ways.Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 11th, 2022, 3:32 amOn the semantic point, it seems to me that you are inadvertently equivocating, jumping between meanings of "equality":
- equal weight of crime and punishment,
- equality between two terms in a proposition that A is B or that each A should be B,
- equal human-ness of persons,
- equal social status amongst persons.
Etc
In an effort to imply some underlying unifying explanatory principle of Equality (with a capital E) which I argue does not exist.
Rather, justice is related to truth.
Let me try to bring them together in a different way. When an injustice occurs there necessarily also occurs a false assertion of equality or inequality between two moral agents. The severity of the injustice depends on how far the false assertion has deviated from the fact of the matter regarding equality or inequality. This fact of the matter depends on a number of things, including but not limited to species, nature, and status. The severity of the consequent retributive punishment then corresponds to the severity of the injustice, which itself depends on the degree of deviation. So the principle of equality and proportionality carries through in various ways, and is deeply embedded in retributive punishment.
Coming back to this quote:
So presumably you would admit that there is a calculation of equality required for retributive justice, and this is because the notion of proportionality presupposes the notion of equality. That is to say, the redress and the wrongdoing must be equal according to some proportion. You just don't want to go farther than that and see the wrongdoing as having something to do with a falsely asserted equality or inequality.Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 10th, 2022, 7:57 pmI'm in favour of proportionality between the redress and the wrongdoing. If - in a way I struggle to explain - there is something about wrongdoing, something inherent in breaking a moral rule, that justifies punishment, then it seems entirely unsurprising to conclude that a small transgression justifies only a small punishment and a severe transgression a severe punishment.
Here's a simple question for you: is it unjust to falsely assert equality or inequality with someone else? Or else, to act on that false assertion?
Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
-
- Posts: 782
- Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am
Re: Is Justice based on Equality?
Did I foolishly say "any form of" ? Or did I just refer to "equality", implicitly referencing the common-usage meaning of the term ?Leontiskos wrote: ↑May 11th, 2022, 2:58 pm Recall that your claim in the OP is the idea that justice is not based on any form of equality.
Arguably the fundamental building block of all thinking is the question as to whether or not element A is a member of set B. If you so extend the scope of "equality" that such a question becomes a matter of the equality of A with the members of B, then it seems like everything is a matter of equality.
Does that not follow logically ? If it's wrong to treat others with more equality than truly exists and wrong to treat others with less equality than truly exists, then the measure of wrongness is truth and not any inherent goodness or rightness in equality.
Don't think that's a simple question.Here's a simple question for you: is it unjust to falsely assert equality or inequality with someone else? Or else, to act on that false assertion?
If someone is due the truth from me, then it is unjust to falsely assert anything to them.
But that then raises questions about assertions that I believe are true but are in fact false...
- Leontiskos
- Posts: 695
- Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas
Re: Is Justice based on Equality?
Well, you seem to be consistently opposed to the OP, which asks if justice is based on some form of equality. Are you now of the mind that justice is based on some form of equality?Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 12th, 2022, 4:18 amDid I foolishly say "any form of" ? Or did I just refer to "equality", implicitly referencing the common-usage meaning of the term ?Leontiskos wrote: ↑May 11th, 2022, 2:58 pm Recall that your claim in the OP is the idea that justice is not based on any form of equality.
But where have I said that equality is the question of whether element A is a member of set B?Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 12th, 2022, 4:18 amArguably the fundamental building block of all thinking is the question as to whether or not element A is a member of set B. If you so extend the scope of "equality" that such a question becomes a matter of the equality of A with the members of B, then it seems like everything is a matter of equality.
I think I have been using the word 'equality' more accurately than you have. For example, you claimed that the Golden Rule is not a matter of equality because equality means <"equality between [all] persons">, and since the Golden Rule is not about equality between all persons therefore it is not about equality. But this is an unsound argument that relies on a false definition of equality. "Equality between [all] persons" is only one form of equality, and the question of the OP is whether justice is based on some form of equality. I have repeated myself many times in pointing out what sort of equality the Golden Rule asserts, such as in <this post>. My most recent attempt to address your false definition of equality was <this post>, which you did not answer.
I think you are committing the same equivocation on the definition of equality noted above. We could condense a subset of your claim, "It is wrong to treat equals unequally, and this has nothing to do with equality." That is clearly false. If we substitute your novel definition of equality noted above, then we get a true statement, "It is wrong to treat equals unequally, and this has nothing to do with [equality between all persons]."Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 12th, 2022, 4:18 amDoes that not follow logically ? If it's wrong to treat others with more equality than truly exists and wrong to treat others with less equality than truly exists, then the measure of wrongness is truth and not any inherent goodness or rightness in equality.
Again, the equality at stake is not "equality between all persons." Instead, the equality at stake is the proportion of equality that exists between persons. The manager and the laborer are not equals, but there is a proportion of equality that obtains between them, and it is unjust to contradict this proportion of equality. It is unjust both to overestimate or to underestimate the proportion of equality.
But the injustice will depend on the content of the truth, and in this case the content of the truth is precisely equality. Let's focus on the second question, "Is it wrong to act on a false assertion of equality or inequality."Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 12th, 2022, 4:18 amDon't think that's a simple question.Leontiskos wrote: ↑May 11th, 2022, 2:58 pmHere's a simple question for you: is it unjust to falsely assert equality or inequality with someone else? Or else, to act on that false assertion?
If someone is due the truth from me, then it is unjust to falsely assert anything to them.
Suppose that I come up to you and take a bite out of your arm because I believe that you are an animal, not a human being. My claim is that one of the root reasons this is wrong is because I am falsely asserting or presupposing inequality. What is your retort? That this is a matter of "truth" rather than equality? But what truth is at stake other than equality?
Response: Cannibalism is at stake.
Answer: The definition of cannibalism is not distinct from equality, for cannibalism presupposes that the victim and the transgressor are of the same/equal species.
Response: Consent is at stake.
Answer: Consent is also not distinct from equality, for at bottom it is about sovereignty and the relation of sovereign wills. The only reason I ought to respect your consent is because I ought to ascribe an equality between our two wills. If our two wills were in fact unequal then consent would not be required (and this is why the manager can give orders to the laborer without his consent).
Response: The Golden Rule is at stake.
Answer: The Golden Rule is also not distinct from equality, for it posits an equality between my desired treatment and my treatment of others (which of course also presupposes a likeness between myself and others).
Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
-
- Posts: 782
- Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am
Re: Is Justice based on Equality?
Far as I can tell, in your lexicon "equality" is so broad that everything is about an aspect of equality. All rules are about equality, because they say that your behaviour should be equal to some standard. All shared characteristics and similarities, and thus all precedents and arguments from consistency are about equality.
Given this usage, justice is indeed about equality - because everything is about equality.
But the common-usage meaning is something far more limited...
- Leontiskos
- Posts: 695
- Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas
Re: Is Justice based on Equality?
Why are you so uninterested in engaging my arguments?Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 12th, 2022, 4:30 pm Is there, in your view, any kind of truth that is distinct from equality ? Could you perhaps give some examples ? Or have you so expanded what you mean by "equality" that it now takes in all of truth ?
Far as I can tell, in your lexicon "equality" is so broad that everything is about an aspect of equality. All rules are about equality, because they say that your behaviour should be equal to some standard. All shared characteristics and similarities, and thus all precedents and arguments from consistency are about equality.
Given this usage, justice is indeed about equality - because everything is about equality.
But the common-usage meaning is something far more limited...
Here is a truth that is unrelated to equality: "The Cherry Blossom blooms in the springtime."
Here is a traffic rule that is unrelated to equality: "Green means go; red means stop."
Here are two moral truths that are unrelated to equality: "Do good and avoid evil. Do not do evil that good may come."
Your artificially narrow definition of equality is false, but it does not follow from this that equality means anything and everything. <"It may be good to remember that 'equal' is just a word whose meaning can be applied to all sorts of different objects.>"
Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
-
- Posts: 782
- Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am
Re: Is Justice based on Equality?
I'm not uninterested at all. I'm suggesting that actually we agree on quite a lot. But that the biggest thing that divides us (and thus obscures whatever real difference of substance there may be) is this semantic issue about what equality means.
We've talked about 3 different ways of understanding or breaking down the concept of justice:
- as having an absolute part and a relative part
- as having a commutative part and a distributive part
- as relating to dues created by promises, dues derived from recognition of each other as rational adult beings, and dues incurred by previous wrongdoing.
I feel that I'm growing in my comprehension of justice by discussing and trying to understand these distinctions and trying to inter-relate them. And I hope you feel that too.
If I can persuade you to bend your brain to similarly deconstructing the concept of equality, we might make further progress.
By saying that cherry trees bloom in spring you're asserting that they are in this respect equal to apple trees and hawthorn trees.Here is a truth that is unrelated to equality: "The Cherry Blossom blooms in the springtime."
That's not itself a rule, that's a proposition about meaning. The associated traffic rule is "you should go when the light shows green and stop when the light shows red". Which describes a behaviour and asserts that as a road user your behaviour should be equal to that.Here is a traffic rule that is unrelated to equality: "Green means go; red means stop."
The lyric in my head runs "It's only words, and words are all I have, to take your heart away" Which may not be the most profound song ever written, but in this medium, without gesture and tone of voice, words are all we have with which to communicate and understand each other.It may be good to remember that 'equal' is just a word whose meaning can be applied to all sorts of different objects.
To try to move the discussion on, I'm wondering about the notion of symmetry between persons (In a Golden Rule context). Maybe it is irrational to respond asymmetrically to a symmetric situation. For it to be rational to act differently to person A than to person B, there has to be some relevant difference between them or their situations.
But then maybe you'd ask why we should be rational...
- Leontiskos
- Posts: 695
- Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas
Re: Is Justice based on Equality?
Fair enough. I agree with that. Maybe I am moving too fast, but after this weekend I will be offline for quite some time, so I am trying to bring the conversation into a terminal state.Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 13th, 2022, 4:17 amI'm not uninterested at all. I'm suggesting that actually we agree on quite a lot. But that the biggest thing that divides us (and thus obscures whatever real difference of substance there may be) is this semantic issue about what equality means.
We've talked about 3 different ways of understanding or breaking down the concept of justice:
- as having an absolute part and a relative part
- as having a commutative part and a distributive part
- as relating to dues created by promises, dues derived from recognition of each other as rational adult beings, and dues incurred by previous wrongdoing.
I feel that I'm growing in my comprehension of justice by discussing and trying to understand these distinctions and trying to inter-relate them. And I hope you feel that too.
If I can persuade you to bend your brain to similarly deconstructing the concept of equality, we might make further progress.
No, I am not asserting that, and this new assertion is in no way necessary for my assertion. Even if apple and hawthorn trees never existed, or if I was unaware of their existence, I could still assert the truth that the Cherry Blossom blooms in the springtime.Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 13th, 2022, 4:17 amBy saying that cherry trees bloom in spring you're asserting that they are in this respect equal to apple trees and hawthorn trees.Leontiskos wrote: ↑May 12th, 2022, 6:33 pm Here is a truth that is unrelated to equality: "The Cherry Blossom blooms in the springtime."
Telling someone to perform an action is not in itself an assertion of equality. Why don't you try to formulate your traffic rule in terms of equality. I think the attempt will show you that such a usage is misplaced.Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 13th, 2022, 4:17 amThe associated traffic rule is "you should go when the light shows green and stop when the light shows red". Which describes a behaviour and asserts that as a road user your behaviour should be equal to that.Leontiskos wrote: ↑May 12th, 2022, 6:33 pmHere is a traffic rule that is unrelated to equality: "Green means go; red means stop."
Or, if you really do want to describe instruction as an assertion of equality, then you will have stretched the word "equality" far beyond its normal usage (in a way that I have not done at all). For example, to take one of the arguments that you choose not to engage, "cannibalism presupposes that the victim and the transgressor are of the same/equal species." That is a real, natural usage of the word 'equality' which does not stretch its meaning unduly. If the victim is of the same species as the one who consumes them, then we have cannibalism. If the victim is not of the same species, then we do not have cannibalism.
Now, perhaps your idea is meant to cut against my understanding of the Golden Rule. The first difference is that instructing someone to perform a particular act is different from instructing someone observe a general norm. The second difference is that a general norm such as, "Do not cause sentient creatures unnecessary pain," is different from a general norm such as, "Treat others the way you want to be treated." This second general norm is really based on equality in a way that the first general norm is not. The rationale for the second general norm is apparently, "...because they are your equals," or, "...because they are the same as you." Let me come back to this earlier quote:
I may have to backpedal and adjust my position a bit, although in my mind it is still consistent.
So the equality that relates to justice is truly a kind of equality or proportion of equality, but it is also an obscure and complex kind of equality. Aristotle spills a lot of ink trying to tease out how exactly this works starting in Book V, section 4 of the Nicomachean Ethics. When you object to equality, it seems to me that you are objecting to a univocal concept of equality where everyone is exactly equal and must be treated in exactly the same way (which Lucky's ice cream example caricatures). Justice and the Golden Rule are certainly not based on this kind of wooden, univocal equality. Nevertheless, they are based on the more complex kind of equality, and this is a kind of "equality between [all] persons" (supposing we understand 'equality' in the robust sense).
In my own words, the basic idea is that if you removed all of their differences, then everyone would be (univocally) equal. This a priori equality is the starting point, and when differences are consequently introduced those differences shift the proportion of equality in various ways, but they always presuppose that a priori starting point. For instance, if we consider person X and person Y in the abstract, they are complete equals. If we subsequently introduce the difference where person X is person Y's manager, then they are no longer equals in the workplace, yet in the workplace they still retain a proportion of equality because the newly introduced variable can never fully destroy the antecedent equality, but only shift or alter it. Thus the manager-laborer relation causes them to treat each other differently, but always within limits because they are never entirely unequal. All other such variables operate in the same manner, such as mother-daughter, husband-wife, citizen-foreigner, etc.
(The other thing to note is that I am not ultimately aiming to defend the position which says that every injustice is at the same time a transgression against a proportion of equality (although that may be true). The OP is more modest, and merely intends the idea that some parts of justice (e.g. retributive justice) are based on a kind of equality. I only pressed harder because it seems to me that you keep wielding an argument that equivocates on "equality" without defending your usage.)
No, I agree. We are obligated to treat equal things equally and unequal things unequally, and therefore if we treat two things unequally then there must of course be a relevant difference which makes them unequal.Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 13th, 2022, 4:17 amTo try to move the discussion on, I'm wondering about the notion of symmetry between persons (In a Golden Rule context). Maybe it is irrational to respond asymmetrically to a symmetric situation. For it to be rational to act differently to person A than to person B, there has to be some relevant difference between them or their situations.
But then maybe you'd ask why we should be rational...
Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
- Leontiskos
- Posts: 695
- Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas
Re: Is Justice based on Equality?
Why should we not murder? Different people might give different reasons:
- Because Pacifism (this is not based on equality)
- Because Consent (this is based on equality)
- Because capital punishment is reserved for the State (this is not based on equality)
- Because of the Golden Rule (this is based on equality)
- Because human beings should not be murdered (this is not based on equality)
- Because rational beings should not be murdered (this is somewhat ambiguous since only rational beings are capable of murder; it could be intended in either way)
Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
- Leontiskos
- Posts: 695
- Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas
Re: Is Justice based on Equality?
We may and do talk about abstractions all the time. A number of folks are currently talking about the inane abstraction where animals have property rights. Even your claim that justice does not exist must be a claim about a coherent concept if it is to be an intelligible statement.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 6:42 pm"Justice" does not exist. We may only talk about such abstractions as they are manifest. The world is not an expression of a series on Platonic Forms. First we have the interactions then the word to describe them.Leontiskos wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 5:24 pmHmm, but we are talking about what justice is rather than what is needed to bring it about.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 3:53 pm Justice is most often based upon the ability to seek restitution.
For that you need power.
I cannot think of any instance where "equality " has been more potent a factor than power.
Even when the slave trade was ended, Whilst some might have used a concept of equality as an argument, in fact those that brought about manumission were the powerful of the British establishment, having sufficient votes in Parliament to achieve that.
But what are you even attempting to argue? Are you saying that justice is brought about or defined by power, therefore it cannot be based on equality? This literally seems to be an example of what you are doing in this thread:Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 6:42 pmI never said Justice is power. But they go hand in hand. Equality has no power and so plays no part in practical justice.Leontiskos wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 5:24 pm It may be true that power is needed to bring about justice, but it does not follow from this that justice is power, or that power is more central to the essence of justice than equality.
For example, we enjoy a wonderfully drafted document called the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and what a wonderful document it is promising equal justice for all.
But no one benefits from it and its "rules", though all countries are signatories, because those "rules" are traduced as suggestions and each country in their whim applies exceptionalism to make sure that their country continues to act as they want.
It is only when the players in any conflict or legal wrangle have "POWER" that the document might be consulted.
You are not living in the same world that I am.Leontiskos wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 5:24 pm It is more likely that the powerless will receive and accept unjust treatment, but this fact does not bear on what justice is.
It also worth noting that just relations between those who are unequal differ from just relations between those who are equal. For example, if a manager of a company were to treat another manager the same way he (justly) treats a common laborer, he would likely be doing the manager an injustice. Thus a distinction between power and status must be made.
The question is "Is justice BASED on equality". The rich and powerful create the systems of justice and it is at their largesse whom such honours are bestowed. This is an historical fact.
In more recent years there has been a move to introduce the concept of equality into system of justice but you have to ask how well do you think that is going.
The move to make justice more egalitarian will not be achieved by ignoring history and pretending slavery and class inequality never happened, especially in a world in which the populace seem to fall over themselves with the effort so participate in their own oppression.
- Leontiskos: Is geometry based on "properties of space such as the distance, shape, size, and relative position of figures" (Wikipedia).
- Sculptor1: Geometry is most often based on the ability to think about figures. For that you need pencils and paper. I cannot think of any instance where "properties" have been a more potent factor than pencils and paper.
Go ahead and try to define "restitution" without recourse to equality. It will be as easy to define figures without recourse to properties.
It seems to me that a lot of folks in this thread just decided they wanted to talk about power, because that's the fashionable thing to talk about nowadays. ...Nevermind the fact that the formal cause of justice has nothing to do with power.
Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Is Justice based on Equality?
There is an odd failing on this and many philosophy Forums that just because a person makes statements it is assumed that s/he is trying to promote and idea.Leontiskos wrote: ↑August 12th, 2022, 12:03 amWe may and do talk about abstractions all the time. A number of folks are currently talking about the inane abstraction where animals have property rights. Even your claim that justice does not exist must be a claim about a coherent concept if it is to be an intelligible statement.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 6:42 pm"Justice" does not exist. We may only talk about such abstractions as they are manifest. The world is not an expression of a series on Platonic Forms. First we have the interactions then the word to describe them.Leontiskos wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 5:24 pmHmm, but we are talking about what justice is rather than what is needed to bring it about.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 3:53 pm Justice is most often based upon the ability to seek restitution.
For that you need power.
I cannot think of any instance where "equality " has been more potent a factor than power.
Even when the slave trade was ended, Whilst some might have used a concept of equality as an argument, in fact those that brought about manumission were the powerful of the British establishment, having sufficient votes in Parliament to achieve that.
But what are you even attempting to argue? Are you saying that justice is brought about or defined by power, therefore it cannot be based on equality? This literally seems to be an example of what you are doing in this thread:Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 6:42 pmI never said Justice is power. But they go hand in hand. Equality has no power and so plays no part in practical justice.Leontiskos wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 5:24 pm It may be true that power is needed to bring about justice, but it does not follow from this that justice is power, or that power is more central to the essence of justice than equality.
For example, we enjoy a wonderfully drafted document called the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and what a wonderful document it is promising equal justice for all.
But no one benefits from it and its "rules", though all countries are signatories, because those "rules" are traduced as suggestions and each country in their whim applies exceptionalism to make sure that their country continues to act as they want.
It is only when the players in any conflict or legal wrangle have "POWER" that the document might be consulted.
You are not living in the same world that I am.Leontiskos wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 5:24 pm It is more likely that the powerless will receive and accept unjust treatment, but this fact does not bear on what justice is.
It also worth noting that just relations between those who are unequal differ from just relations between those who are equal. For example, if a manager of a company were to treat another manager the same way he (justly) treats a common laborer, he would likely be doing the manager an injustice. Thus a distinction between power and status must be made.
The question is "Is justice BASED on equality". The rich and powerful create the systems of justice and it is at their largesse whom such honours are bestowed. This is an historical fact.
In more recent years there has been a move to introduce the concept of equality into system of justice but you have to ask how well do you think that is going.
The move to make justice more egalitarian will not be achieved by ignoring history and pretending slavery and class inequality never happened, especially in a world in which the populace seem to fall over themselves with the effort so participate in their own oppression.
In Aristotelian terms you are conflating an efficient cause with the formal cause, and the discussion is inevitably about the formal cause of justice. Of course efficient and formal causes do not compete with one another, but that is a separate difficulty. From earlier:
- Leontiskos: Is geometry based on "properties of space such as the distance, shape, size, and relative position of figures" (Wikipedia).
- Sculptor1: Geometry is most often based on the ability to think about figures. For that you need pencils and paper. I cannot think of any instance where "properties" have been a more potent factor than pencils and paper.
Go ahead and try to define "restitution" without recourse to equality. It will be as easy to define figures without recourse to properties.
It seems to me that a lot of folks in this thread just decided they wanted to talk about power, because that's the fashionable thing to talk about nowadays. ...Nevermind the fact that the formal cause of justice has nothing to do with power.
I am not trying to argue FOR anything. What I am doing here is describing the world as it is; that justice is for the powerful.
Take a look at any legal system, and that is what you will find. Even, or even especially where there is lip service to "equality", it is only equality for the powerful.
In ancient Greece the great reformers such as Solon and Demosthenes, may have extended rights, they also specifically denied them to slaves, metiks and women. Where the demos had power, they had the right to act.
After the great reforms of the 19thC eventually even women got the vote. Introduced where often by parties who had fought so hard against it - because at the end they saw the advantage of being the gift giver and were rewarded by the female vote.
But despite the "equality" on paper access to the law is restricted by hard cash.
Which brings us back to the start
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023