Yes, and it would be better to say that the proportionality of retribution is an effect of the relative part of justice, for it restores the balance or equality that previously obtained between malefactor and victim. Again, I am not sure how someone would explain retribution apart from equality.Good_Egg wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 5:20 pmYes, I agree that the honest communist who doesn't believe in private property at all (and acts on his belief) is morally preferable to the one who treats his own property as his own and everyone else's as held in common. And the difference is explained by the Golden Rule.Leontiskos wrote: ↑April 25th, 2022, 12:16 am Rather than say that absolute justice applies in one case, and the Golden Rule applies in the other cases, it seems to me that they are simply two different principles...
For instance, the man who steals from others and doesn't mind when others steal from him is more just than the man who steals from others and gets angry when others steal from him, and this difference is explained by the Golden Rule (and also by Kant's Categorical Imperative). Sound right?"
It seems to me that these two principles each apply to all cases.
If I understand you right, you generalize this by dividing justice into two parts - an absolute part and a relative part (which is to do with equality and the Golden Rule). And hold the dishonest communist as being in breach of both parts.
Whereas your argument (in Aquinas) that the absolute part is based on equality is to do with the proportionality of retribution or restitution to the wrong that has been done.
I'm not finding this totally convincing, but you may yet bring me around to it.
Hmm. You have talked much more about impartiality than I have (and I am incidentally curious how impartiality is justified by the "absolute part of justice").Good_Egg wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 5:20 pmPart of our disagreement is to do with terminology. Simple equality is the requirement that Bill gets as much ice cream (or anything else) as Fred does. I think you're not actually arguing for that. But by lumping together valid considerations (which I describe as impartiality , symmetry, universality, proportionality etc) as aspects of equality, you encourage Bill to think that getting the same as Fred does is some sort of fundamental right or basic value,.Leontiskos wrote: ↑April 25th, 2022, 12:16 amSo again, the equality of the Golden Rule clearly does not say that we must treat Bill and Fred the same.
Rather than something he has to argue for on a case-by-case basis. (E.g. by demonstrating that what he wants follows from a duty on you to be impartial between them, or from the universality of some principle).
But my point is that you are misconstruing the Golden Rule by confusing the Rule itself with implications that may or may not follow. If Bill receives less ice cream than Fred, he has no appeal to the Golden Rule. He arguably has an appeal to an implication of the Golden Rule, or else an appeal to impartiality, but this is different from the Golden Rule itself. The Golden Rule does not say that everyone is equal, or that everyone has equal rights. I think if you read the words of the Golden Rule carefully it is quite clear that it says no such thing, and I first argued for such an idea in <this post>.