Is Justice based on Equality?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by Leontiskos »

Good_Egg wrote: April 26th, 2022, 5:20 pm
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.
Yes, 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.

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.
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 pm
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.
Part 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,.

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).
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").

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>.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by LuckyR »

Leontiskos wrote: April 26th, 2022, 2:29 pm
LuckyR wrote: April 26th, 2022, 4:08 amClose, but you're not quite there.

The difference between the Golden and the Platinum rules is not what triggers doing something for another, nor when to do it. It specifically addresses what to do, regardless of how you came to the conclusion you should do anything at all. Hence why my post addressed flavors, not ice creams.
Eh, you're not close at all.

Claiming that the Golden Rule requires me to give other people my favorite flavor of ice cream is just a strawman and shallow moral philosophy. The Golden Rule easily accounts for the fact that it is better to give someone the flavor they prefer rather than the flavor I prefer, for that is precisely the way I would want to be treated.

Again, the difference between the Golden Rule and the "Platinum Rule" is unity vs. disunity. Are my desires fundamentally the same as other people's or fundamentally different? If they are fundamentally the same then we have the Golden Rule and an ethic that unifies communities and illuminates justice. If they are fundamentally different then we have the "Platinum Rule" and an individualistic and relativistic ethic that has no unifying effect on communities and has no relation to justice.

From a superficial vantage point the "Platinum Rule" may seem better, but a deeper and more serious approach to ethics shows that to be false. If nicety is your goal, then the "Platinum Rule" is your means. If justice, communitarianism, and a robust moral philosophy is your goal, then the clear winner is the Golden Rule.
If you stand by your red statement, then I agree with the twist you've applied to the standard Golden rule, as it adds the empathy of the Platinum rule, thus elevating it.

As to desires being fundamentally similar and different, members of the majority naturally assume the former and the marginalized are more personally aware of the nuances of the latter.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by Sy Borg »

Leontiskos wrote: April 25th, 2022, 11:21 pm
Sy Borg wrote: April 25th, 2022, 10:49 pm
Good_Egg wrote: April 25th, 2022, 6:42 pmClearly, buying an ice cream for someone who likes ice cream is doing them a good deed.
Not if the ice cream is hazelnut, and you have told the purchaser many times that you are allergic to hazelnut. Ostensible good deeds can be used as passive aggressive attacks, or as the basis of later coercion. Consider how helpful China has been to the Solomon Islands. Or one might consider the advantages for China of propping up a corrupt dictator and have a puppet state in a strategic location.

It's always a case of might making right. It doesn't matter if you are allergic to hazelnut. You will eat that ice cream and then say how wonderful the purchaser was for their kind favour, even as you enter the ICU.
That was easily one of the most cynical posts I have ever read.

Further, it doesn't actually add to the discussion about justice, good deeds, the Golden Rule, and the "Platinum Rule."
Since you can't refute my point, you go for the jugular, as appears to be your style.

The question is whether justice is based on equality. My point was that justice has always been based on power. It's not my fault that you are too PC to accept the obvious. Religions have long prescribed what they believe is good for everyone - both for their adherents and everyone else. I don't want churches telling me what's good for me, especially while my taxes help to fund their tax breaks and their private schools.

So, regarding the Golden Rule. Why do churches keep on insisting on tax exemptions for their entire operations when the exemption should only cover their charity work, not the whole organisation? Would those religious corporations want other companies to claim more tax exemptions than is their due?

Of course not. Yet I have never heard a theist complain about this unfairness. Religions continue to take many millions, or more, from taxpayers who do not subscribe to their myths or their misogynist, homophobic ideologies.

Theists then have the nerve to wax lyrical about the Golden Rule - as if they actually cared. (The above makes it obvious that they don't). It's hypocrisy. First they should clean up their own backyard.

However, religions are extremely powerful. Thus, they can get away with lobbying to maintain their unfair advantages. There is no public call for accountability because religions are too powerful.

As stated, justice is determined by the powerful.

QED.
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by Leontiskos »

Sy Borg wrote: April 26th, 2022, 8:27 pmQED.
If you attempt to formalize your argument you will find that it is not an argument at all, and is instead the very sort of "power play" you profess to oppose.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by Leontiskos »

LuckyR wrote: April 26th, 2022, 8:26 pm
Leontiskos wrote: April 26th, 2022, 2:29 pmClaiming that the Golden Rule requires me to give other people my favorite flavor of ice cream is just a strawman and shallow moral philosophy. The Golden Rule easily accounts for the fact that it is better to give someone the flavor they prefer rather than the flavor I prefer, for that is precisely the way I would want to be treated.
If you stand by your red statement, then I agree with the twist you've applied to the standard Golden rule, as it adds the empathy of the Platinum rule, thus elevating it.
I stand by it, but it's not a twist or an elevation. In fact I was doing nothing more than quoting the Golden Rule, "...for that is precisely the way I would want to be treated."
LuckyR wrote: April 26th, 2022, 8:26 pmAs to desires being fundamentally similar and different, members of the majority naturally assume the former and the marginalized are more personally aware of the nuances of the latter.
In general it is hard to engage your posts because you offer so little argumentation for your claims. For example, it seems obvious to me that you've got this precisely backwards, and that it is the affluent who focus on individualism and the marginalized who are "more personally aware" of the basic, common needs of mankind. The affluent desire to be treated according to their decadent whims and the marginalized merely desire to be treated as human beings. The marginalized do not have specialized desires which are different from or at odds with the ordinary man, and their desires tend to be rational and in accord with justice. Nevertheless, I have no idea why you believe the opposite, for you did not tell us.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by Sy Borg »

Leontiskos wrote: April 26th, 2022, 8:48 pm
Sy Borg wrote: April 26th, 2022, 8:27 pmQED.
If you attempt to formalize your argument you will find that it is not an argument at all, and is instead the very sort of "power play" you profess to oppose.
It seems that you don't like the flavour of "ice cream" I provided. You just accidentally supported Lucky's point.

QED again.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by LuckyR »

Leontiskos wrote: April 26th, 2022, 8:57 pm
LuckyR wrote: April 26th, 2022, 8:26 pm
Leontiskos wrote: April 26th, 2022, 2:29 pmClaiming that the Golden Rule requires me to give other people my favorite flavor of ice cream is just a strawman and shallow moral philosophy. The Golden Rule easily accounts for the fact that it is better to give someone the flavor they prefer rather than the flavor I prefer, for that is precisely the way I would want to be treated.
If you stand by your red statement, then I agree with the twist you've applied to the standard Golden rule, as it adds the empathy of the Platinum rule, thus elevating it.
I stand by it, but it's not a twist or an elevation. In fact I was doing nothing more than quoting the Golden Rule, "...for that is precisely the way I would want to be treated."
LuckyR wrote: April 26th, 2022, 8:26 pmAs to desires being fundamentally similar and different, members of the majority naturally assume the former and the marginalized are more personally aware of the nuances of the latter.
In general it is hard to engage your posts because you offer so little argumentation for your claims. For example, it seems obvious to me that you've got this precisely backwards, and that it is the affluent who focus on individualism and the marginalized who are "more personally aware" of the basic, common needs of mankind. The affluent desire to be treated according to their decadent whims and the marginalized merely desire to be treated as human beings. The marginalized do not have specialized desires which are different from or at odds with the ordinary man, and their desires tend to be rational and in accord with justice. Nevertheless, I have no idea why you believe the opposite, for you did not tell us.
Again, I appreciate the meaning you are (now) describing as coming from the Golden rule. If you meant it all along, fantastic. Just be aware that many others don't think the wording of the Golden rule means what you're saying it does.

Well part of your problem understanding my posts is you add things to them that I never wrote. For example I made no reference to wealth vs poverty, yet you (supposedly) try to paraphrase my comment on "the majority" as "The affluent". Why wouldn't members of the largest subset (the majority) assume that their shared majority experience extends to everyone? That is a logical assumption that is confirmed by my and many others personal experience. Similarly, members of numerically small splinter groups, who A) have a quite different life experience from the majority and B) likely suffer from some degree of discrimination from the majority, typically have different problems from and therefore seek different relief from them than the majority.
"As usual... it depends."
Good_Egg
Posts: 782
Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by Good_Egg »

Sy Borg wrote: April 26th, 2022, 8:27 pm As stated, justice is determined by the powerful.
If you're stating that this is the way the world is, I'm not going to argue.

But I ask, are you content with this situation, or does it strike you as unjust?

If you think it unjust, then maybe you're using the word "just" in slightly different ways ? Justice cannot be unjust. But what is labelled as justice can be.
Leontiskos wrote: April 26th, 2022, 7:15 pm 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
I tend to agree.

I'm suggesting that if you ask people whether equality means that everyone is equal, or whether equality means that everyone has equal rights, they will say Yes.

And I conclude that it is therefore misleading to identify the Golden Rule with equality.

If you talk of it as as "an equality principle" or something "based on equality", then you encourage such identification.

Maybe the appropriate description of the Golden Rule is "universal" - it gives you a standard for how you treat everyone.

Seems to me that you want to say more than that. That because the Golden Rule uses how you want Bill to treat you as the basis for how you treat Bill, you want to say that it embodies some type of equal rights or equal status between you and Bill.

But two things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. If you and Bill have equal rights, and you and Fred have equal rights, then Bill and Fred have equal rights. Which is what you've denied that the Golden Rule says.
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
CIN
Posts: 284
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 10:33 am

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by CIN »

Leontiskos wrote: April 24th, 2022, 1:12 pm
LuckyR wrote: April 24th, 2022, 4:36 am Well, the Golden Rule (treat others as you would want to be treated) isn't bad, but it isn't as good as the Platinum Rule: treat others as they want to be treated.
I disagree entirely. The so-called "Platinum Rule" is a decline into relativism. Morality is not based on whim, and this is why the Golden Rule is superior (and also why there is an "absolute" aspect to the Golden Rule, namely that the desired treatment not be arbitrary).
Both are relativistic, in that they assume that moral rightness is derivable from wants. The Golden Rule purports to derive the rightness of an action from the agent's wants, while the Platinum Rule purports to derive it from the wants of the person acted upon.
Leontiskos wrote: April 25th, 2022, 12:43 am
The second part of the Golden Rule is, "...as you would like to be treated," or, "...as you would have them do unto you." This second part is traditionally interpreted in a somewhat universalizing way, such as, "...in the way that human beings want to be treated." That is, there is a way that human beings want to be treated, this is known through our own desires and wills, and to a limited extent it also extends to our own particular wills.
That is not an interpretation, that is a substitution.

Both the Golden and Platinum Rules are no more than rules of thumb. They are both good in their way, but they can never achieve the status of objective moral principles, because what people want is never a 100% reliable guide to the right way to treat either themselves or anyone else.
Philosophy is a waste of time. But then, so is most of life.
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by Leontiskos »

Lost my reply, so this is #2 :x
Good_Egg wrote: April 27th, 2022, 9:50 am
Leontiskos wrote: April 26th, 2022, 7:15 pm 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
I tend to agree.

I'm suggesting that if you ask people whether equality means that everyone is equal, or whether equality means that everyone has equal rights, they will say Yes.

And I conclude that it is therefore misleading to identify the Golden Rule with equality.

If you talk of it as as "an equality principle" or something "based on equality", then you encourage such identification.

Maybe the appropriate description of the Golden Rule is "universal" - it gives you a standard for how you treat everyone.
Here is what I said earlier (link):

"To be clear, the Golden Rule seems to be saying that there needs to be an equality between <our treatment of others> and <the way we would like others to treat us>."

There are two terms. The first term is, "Our treatment of others." The second term is, "The way we would like others to treat us." My claim is that the Golden Rule asserts a relation of equality between the two terms. If you disagree, then what relation do you believe the Golden Rule asserts between the two terms?

(You seem to be arbitrarily restricting the use of the word 'equal.' You seem to think that because we talk about equal rights we therefore cannot talk about equal treatment. It may be good to remember that 'equal' is just a word whose meaning can be applied to all sorts of different objects.)
Good_Egg wrote: April 27th, 2022, 9:50 amSeems to me that you want to say more than that. That because the Golden Rule uses how you want Bill to treat you as the basis for how you treat Bill, you want to say that it embodies some type of equal rights or equal status between you and Bill.

But two things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. If you and Bill have equal rights, and you and Fred have equal rights, then Bill and Fred have equal rights. Which is what you've denied that the Golden Rule says.
In <this post> I argued in some detail that your formulation of the Golden Rule which sees it as being about equal rights is mistaken.

Still, we could apply your transitive argument in a way that avoids rights. "If I must treat Bill the way I want to be treated, and I must treat Fred the way I want to be treated, then I must treat Bill and Fred in the exact same way."

The problem here is that "the way I want to be treated" is not a univocal term, and therefore in a formal sense the argument commits an equivocation on the middle term. The Golden Rule is in part about "putting ourselves in another person's shoes." For instance, I can apply the Golden Rule to my mother and to my daughter, but this will not require me to treat them both in the exact same way. Instead I should treat my mother the way I would want to be treated if I were a mother, and I should treat my daughter the way I would want to be treated if I were a daughter.

It seems to me that the Golden Rule therefore retains the unique character of individual relationships, and does not meld all of humanity into a single moral person. Neither does this strike me as controversial. I don't think anyone who accepts the Golden Rule understands that term univocally, as if it must be applied identically to all people. I think such a reading would result in absurdity rather quickly, and, like to the 'rights formulation', is also historically anachronistic.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by Sy Borg »

Good_Egg wrote: April 27th, 2022, 9:50 am
Sy Borg wrote: April 26th, 2022, 8:27 pm As stated, justice is determined by the powerful.
If you're stating that this is the way the world is, I'm not going to argue.

But I ask, are you content with this situation, or does it strike you as unjust?

If you think it unjust, then maybe you're using the word "just" in slightly different ways ? Justice cannot be unjust. But what is labelled as justice can be.
Yep, I am saying it's how the world is. This appears to be about as good as it gets at this stage. We still live in one of the very best times in history, although it appears that we have peaked in that regard.

I do hold hope that more advanced societies in the future will be capable of becoming ethical. At this stage, we are still rather primitive. Look at how we eat and the standard of public debates on social media. Just apes with keyboards throwing metaphorical banana peels at each other.

Consider, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Central America, the Pacific, the US. That's about 85% of the world's population. Are these societies experiencing equality? Are there signs that equality is increasing or decreasing?

In the end, some inequality allows societies to progress, with sufficient resources made available for the "best and brightest" to innovate. It's always been a matter of balance. Too much equality brings mediocrity and stagnation while not enough equality brings discord and poverty. The balance changes because, despite humanity's wish to control their fate, they are not actually in control and never have been in control of their collective future.
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by Leontiskos »

LuckyR wrote: April 27th, 2022, 2:52 amAgain, I appreciate the meaning you are (now) describing as coming from the Golden rule. If you meant it all along, fantastic. Just be aware that many others don't think the wording of the Golden rule means what you're saying it does.
Fair enough. I don't actually agree that there is a legitimate alternative interpretation. I think that the interpretation which says that the Golden Rule binds me to give other people my favorite ice cream is a caricature. Of course, it would not surprise me if people hold to such caricatures and criticize the Golden Rule on that basis, and for this reason I don't altogether disagree with that last sentence.
LuckyR wrote: April 27th, 2022, 2:52 amWell part of your problem understanding my posts is you add things to them that I never wrote. For example I made no reference to wealth vs poverty, yet you (supposedly) try to paraphrase my comment on "the majority" as "The affluent".
Well you tried to draw a contrast but you didn't use contraries, so I was inevitably left guessing. Majorities and marginalized are not contraries. Majorities and minorities are. Affluent and poor are. Ascendant and disenfranchised are.

In this post you actually switched to contraries, by switching from "marginalized" to minorities:
LuckyR wrote: April 27th, 2022, 2:52 amSimilarly, members of numerically small splinter groups...
...and that is a rather different claim than the one you presented.
LuckyR wrote: April 27th, 2022, 2:52 amWhy wouldn't members of the largest subset (the majority) assume that their shared majority experience extends to everyone? That is a logical assumption that is confirmed by my and many others personal experience.
I agree that such an assumption is logical, but I don't see how it relates to the Golden and "Platinum" rules.
LuckyR wrote: April 27th, 2022, 2:52 amSimilarly, members of numerically small splinter groups, who A) have a quite different life experience from the majority and B) likely suffer from some degree of discrimination from the majority, typically have different problems from and therefore seek different relief from them than the majority.
I don't think that claim will hold up, but I would welcome you to give arguments for why you think it is so. You seem to be saying that minorities would prefer the "Platinum" rule because of their life experience, discrimination, and problems, all of which differ from those of the majority. In particular you seem to be implying that there are forms of treatment that minority members desire which majority members do not recognize as desirable, such that entirely different standards of treatment apply.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
EricPH
Posts: 449
Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by EricPH »

There are many ways to interpret the golden rule. So we have laws that help us to understand what we should and should not do, to make make the golden rule work.

There are limits to what the laws can achieve, don't kill, steal, cheat etc. The more profound side of the golden rule is the voluntary side, like what kind of ice cream should I buy you? If you tried writing laws for buying someone an ice cream, the law books would be horrendous.

Jesus gave us the greatest commandments to love God and our neighbours, All the law and the prophets hang and depend on these commandments. If we could live by these commandments and interpret them in a greatest good way, then we should not need any laws.

But who is my neighbour? Is it just family and friends, do I really have to include the homeless guy that I walk by? If I was the homeless guy, how would I like to be treated?
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by Leontiskos »

CIN wrote: April 27th, 2022, 3:04 pm
Leontiskos wrote: April 24th, 2022, 1:12 pm
LuckyR wrote: April 24th, 2022, 4:36 am Well, the Golden Rule (treat others as you would want to be treated) isn't bad, but it isn't as good as the Platinum Rule: treat others as they want to be treated.
I disagree entirely. The so-called "Platinum Rule" is a decline into relativism. Morality is not based on whim, and this is why the Golden Rule is superior (and also why there is an "absolute" aspect to the Golden Rule, namely that the desired treatment not be arbitrary).
Both are relativistic, in that they assume that moral rightness is derivable from wants. The Golden Rule purports to derive the rightness of an action from the agent's wants, while the Platinum Rule purports to derive it from the wants of the person acted upon.
It is anachronistic to apply radical notions of volition to a maxim that is thousands of years old. Such a notion would be entirely foreign to the people who formulated the Golden Rule.

On the other hand, the "Platinum Rule" really does fit into the contemporary paradigm you are assuming.
CIN wrote: April 27th, 2022, 3:04 pmBoth the Golden and Platinum Rules are no more than rules of thumb. They are both good in their way, but they can never achieve the status of objective moral principles, because what people want is never a 100% reliable guide to the right way to treat either themselves or anyone else.
I think folks underestimate the Golden Rule, but that's to be expected.

I mean, do you think there are objective moral principles which are superior to the Golden Rule? Your attempt in the other thread is falling to pieces. People do want a "100% reliable guide," but that's because people are not very intelligent. Aristotle told us over 2,000 years ago that phronesis is not an exact knowledge. Discarding the Golden Rule because it is not a "100% reliable guide" is like discarding a bicycle because it doesn't cure cancer.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
Good_Egg
Posts: 782
Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by Good_Egg »

Leontiskos wrote: April 27th, 2022, 6:18 pm Lost my reply, so this is #2 :x
Second attempt never quite captures the eloquence of the original..... :)
There are two terms. The first term is, "Our treatment of others." The second term is, "The way we would like others to treat us." My claim is that the Golden Rule asserts a relation of equality between the two terms. If you disagree, then what relation do you believe the Golden Rule asserts between the two terms?
I would say that one is the yardstick by which we judge the other. In the way that the known gives us a handle on the unknown.

But my issue is less an objection to equality between two terms or quantities, and more to the way that by abbreviating this to "equality" you appear to reference equality between persons. If I ask people if equality is a good thing, how many will say Yes ? And how many will say that equality between two quantities is an empirical fact with no inherent moral significance ? This is the equivocation, the ambiguity that I'm looking to pin down.
I argued in some detail that your formulation of the Golden Rule which sees it as being about equal rights is mistaken.
The title of the thread is about justice and equality, and you introduced the Golden Rule as a third entity, so we're discussing the relationships between all 3.

I don't think you've said what you see as the relationship between justice and the Golden Rule.

I'd suggest a strong connection between justice and rights. Justice is about what is due to each person, which is to say what they have a moral right to. Rights are related to duties (if I have a duty to give you something then you have a right to receive it from me). And "due" and "duty" clearly have the same root.

The Golden Rule clearly goes beyond or wider than justice. It says you should be merciful to others (treat them better than their due) in those circumstances in which you would seek mercy from them.

But mercy is gracious; you cannot have a duty to be merciful.

A golden rule approach to justice is necessarily about duty and rights because justice is about duty and rights. To the extent that the Golden Rule is distinct from justice, what can it tell us about justice ?
I can apply the Golden Rule to my mother and to my daughter, but this will not require me to treat them both in the exact same way. Instead I should treat my mother the way I would want to be treated if I were a mother, and I should treat my daughter the way I would want to be treated if I were a daughter.
That's a different emphasis from your post a couple of days ago, when you were telling us that the Golden Rule is about the wants that are common to all humans, and not wants that are idiosyncratic.

Both are applications of the Golden Rule; what varies is the level of abstraction or particularity in the way you apply it.

You think that your way of applying the golden rule is a better way than some other ways of applying it. I agree - I'm not keen on hazelnut ice cream either. But I naturally think that my way of applying it is better still.

I see conflicts of interest arising naturally. Between buyer and seller, between landlord and tenant, between driver and pedestrian - you can think of others. How does the golden rule apply ? We can approach such conflicts with courtesy and understanding and good humour (as we would wish others to).

But some would apply the golden rule in a way that means that as a pedestrian you should treat the street as belonging to the drivers (because that's how you'd want other pedestrians to treat you when you're driving) and as a driver you should treat the street as belonging to the pedestrians (because that's how you'd want drivers to treat you).

Which instead of promoting a fair and transparent system where everyone knows the rules of the road, tends to deprive moral people of all assertiveness and has them giving way to others all the time.

So I prefer Kant - the notion that one should act in a way that one can will to be a universal rule. In this case rules of the road that I can will everyone to follow whether I happen to be a driver or a pedestrian at this moment.

Not sure whether you'd consider that an application of the golden rule at a different level of abstraction, or a replacement of golden rule thinking with Categorical Imperative thinking...
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021