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
EricPH
Posts: 449
Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by EricPH »

Leontiskos wrote: April 20th, 2022, 11:37 pm 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>.
Justice seems skewed in favour of the rich, who is more likely to see justice carries out?

The rich man who has a £1m worth of jewels stolen.
Or the poor man whose only pair of shoes are stolen?

In theory, the poor man need justice more than the rich.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by JackDaydream »

Leontiskos wrote: April 18th, 2022, 11:22 pm An old question came up in a recent thread. Is justice based on equality, or some form of equality? Note that we are here talking about 'commutative' or 'corrective' justice (duties owed to other moral agents). Here are the original quotes:
Good_Egg wrote: April 10th, 2022, 6:25 pm
CIN wrote: April 9th, 2022, 7:36 pmOne should try to treat everyone equally as a moral end;
...And "equally" doesn't really come into it. Treating all people as well as you should is what morality demands. If you choose to treat some better than that, to go the extra mile for somebody in a moment of altruism, then well done you...
---------------

What do you think? Is commutative justice based on some kind of equality?


I will start off with a question for Good_Egg: What about the Golden Rule? The Golden Rule states that there must be a proportion of equality between the way that I treat others and the way that I would like to be treated. Would you say that the Golden Rule is unrelated to justice since it is based on equality, and justice is not about equality? Or perhaps that it is unrelated to morality for the same reason?

---------------

Resources:
The way in which I see your basic question is of comparing and weighing up the meanings of the concepts of justice and equality. Both have been seen as ethical ideals and the two have been measures used in the consideration of moral thinking and arguments.

A key aspect of justice is what a person deserves and the principle of fairness. Equality involves the principle of people being treated alike, so involves fairness too. If that was taken to mean overlooking difference completely that would be a rather crude interpretation. People have different attributes and need to be respected on account of these, as suggested in most understandings of equal opportunities.

In your outpost, you point to the golden rule and it may be that this principle is a standard for thinking about both equality and justice. The principle may be about empathetic understanding. While each person's life is based on a different set of advantages and disadvantages, as well as unique histories of moral actions, the golden rule involves being able to try to step into the unique position of any other individual as a basis for thinking about how they should be treated. It would include an attempt to understand the uniqueness of the person, including his or her psychology. This could apply to how people who commit crime are treated as well as aspects of life like employment. Where justice and equality meet may be in the principle of fairness.

The idea of fairness in itself could imply an emphasis on meeting the situation with some objectivity. The principle of justice may include looking beyond the subjective wishes of revenge to what may be constructive. This may be considered in relation to law, whereby the ends of treatment as effects are important. The equality aspects may be about overseeing biases which may be present in various ways, including discrimination..

Part of the problem about both justice and equality is that they are ideals, and seeing the two together may balance these. For example, the principle of justice may be balanced against equality by attention to individual circumstances as, for example, in understanding why people may have committed crimes. Similarly, the idea of justice may bring a certain objectivity. For example, if I am a gay white man, I should not be swayed by that position but able to think of all individuals' predicaments with the starting point of being able to consider the uniqueness of everybody. It may all seem rigid at times and the golden rule may bring an emotional aspect of empathy, alongside rational objective thinking.
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 21st, 2022, 6:09 am
Leontiskos wrote: April 18th, 2022, 11:22 pm An old question came up in a recent thread. Is justice based on equality, or some form of equality? Note that we are here talking about 'commutative' or 'corrective' justice (duties owed to other moral agents). Here are the original quotes:
Good_Egg wrote: April 10th, 2022, 6:25 pm
CIN wrote: April 9th, 2022, 7:36 pmOne should try to treat everyone equally as a moral end;
...And "equally" doesn't really come into it. Treating all people as well as you should is what morality demands. If you choose to treat some better than that, to go the extra mile for somebody in a moment of altruism, then well done you...
---------------

What do you think? Is commutative justice based on some kind of equality?
Yes, I think so.

One thing we need to be careful of is not to confuse two kinds of equality. The first, which I will call 'gross equality of treatment' (GET), is where you treat two beings in exactly the same way. For example, I have two servants, one of whom is a meat-eater and the other a vegan with a meat allergy, and I pay them by feeding them both on meat.

The second, which I will call 'net equality of treatment' (NET), is where you treat two beings in such a way that each receives the same amount of what is good for that being. For example, I have two servants, one a meat-eater and the other a vegan with a meat allergy, and I pay them by feeding the first on meat and the second on plant-based food.

Which form of equality, if either, is connected to commutative justice, and in what way?

GET seems to me to be unjust. Presumably the idea behind commutative justice is that I should return something good for me with something good for the person who gave it to me. (If it isn't that, why should I return anything at all?) GET does not do that.

NET seems more plausible. The basic idea of NET is that you treat beings equally in giving them equal amounts of what is good for them. This is not specifically a principle of justice, of course, but it seems to me that justice requires that we try to implement this principle.

If a third person comes to work for me, the just thing to do will be to feed them on meat if they are a meat-eater, and on plant-based food if they are vegan. So I have a just rule which I can always apply, and the rule is based on net equality of treatment.
I'm not crazy about your example. I'm not sure whether you are talking about indentured servitude or contractual labor, for the former is closer to distributive justice and the latter doesn't seem to jibe with the idea of feeding servants.

If it is contractual labor, then the justice is remuneration on the basis of the contractual agreement. Obviously we use money to avoid the difficulty you raise, but the other thing to note is that the vegan is not likely to contract for meat. I'm wondering if there is a better and more realistic example available. If not, can you clarify the relation between the employer and the laborer?
So I think it must be the case that justice is based on a kind of equality. There are cases where it is held by many people that this generally applicable equality should be modified. The obvious one is punishment: it is generally held that if someone commits a crime, their right to equal treatment is to be reduced or even removed. Yet even so, most people hold that similar crimes should result in a similar reduction or removal, and this too is a principle of equality.
True, and punishment is a paradigm case for commutative justice. I also tend to think that equality comes into play in the severity of punishment, but I'm sure that will come up in time.
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 21st, 2022, 4:54 pm I also tend to think that equality comes into play in the severity of punishment, but I'm sure that will come up in time.
In justice, the severity of the punishment relates principally to the gravity of the crime.

Equal treatment is again something that follows only accidentally - two felons may be due similar punishment because they have committed the same crime in similar circumstances.

Whereas equal consideration is implied by the impartiality of justice.

Justice is based on the idea that a person can be due or deserve a particular outcome. If you believe that what is deserved is firstly meaningful and secondly knowable (to some level of precision) then that knowledge gives you a potential reason for treating people unequally. Consideration of justice is at least as likely to lead to unequal treatment of two accused persons as to equal treatment.

But any such reasoning applied impartially to all persons is an example of equal consideration. Reason is unprejudiced.

You'll say that what I'm talking about is absolute justice. And that you have a moral intuition that people should be treated the same, which you call "relative justice". Which may be a stronger intuition - you may feel more strongly that differential punishments for similar crimes in similar circumstances is unjust than you feel that any individual punishment is more severe or more lenient than is due.

Nonetheless, that value of equality is not the logical basis of justice. People being given equal consideration is a side-effect of treating them all rightly in absolute terms.
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
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 21st, 2022, 7:25 pm
Leontiskos wrote: April 21st, 2022, 4:54 pm I also tend to think that equality comes into play in the severity of punishment, but I'm sure that will come up in time.
People being given equal consideration is a side-effect of treating them all rightly in absolute terms.
It seems to me that our discussion about the Golden Rule is preliminary to this other topic relating to punishment, so let's continue with that and see where it takes us. ;)

We will come back to this question of punishment, and I will give a response to these claims of yours regarding punishment if you still want to defend them at that time.

In any case, one of the things we are driving at is the <question> both I and CIN asked you in the other thread.
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 21st, 2022, 8:21 pm In any case, one of the things we are driving at is the <question> both I and CIN asked you in the other thread.
I think you're asking me here to go into more detail about what it is that is due to people and how we know that. If a man wishes to be just - to give each person their due - how does he go about identifying what that is ?

It seems to me that one category of dues arises from promises made. I owe you what I've promised to give you.

And by extension there are "implied promises". If we have been friends, then you are due from me the treatment customary between friends in whatever subculture we inhabit, even if there was never an explicit contract to that effect.

Another category of dues would be to do with the restorative justice that others have already mentioned. Which is to say that you are due from me restitution for past wrongs that I have done you.

And then, alongside the dues from the positive and negative aspects of our particular relationship, there are the dues to complete strangers, that which is common to all people whether we've a past relationship or not, whether we're close neighbours or not.

Some of these are fundamental rights. As a human being your due is to be treated as a human being. As such, I owe it to you not to take your life, your body or your possessions without your consent. These are the big things.

When it comes to the small things - do I owe it to you not to park in your customary space ? Not to exhale cigarette smoke where you may breathe it in ? Not to speak disparagingly of some group to which you may feel you belong ? - there is not the same level of consensus.

And this is where, I suggest, the golden rule comes in. If there is symmetry between us, then there is no reason why what is due to you should differ from what is due to me in the same circumstances.

We may disagree about how much of what is common can be privatised by custom. We may disagree about how far the space which is common or public is for everyone to use as seems good to them or for nobody to use in any way that seems not-good to anyone else. But in that disagreement, I am not being unjust if I apply the same standard to you as I apply to myself.

But beyond that, it seems to me that giving someone their due involves acknowledging what is good in what they do and what is true in what they say, however much one disapproves of or dislikes them in general. Justice does not let us demonize our opponents or idolise those on our own side.

I hope that gives some idea of justice as a much bigger notion, to which equality is not central.
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
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,

Let me begin by attempting to summarize our difference on the Golden Rule in a more straightforward way: I think the Golden Rule is substantive and central to commutative justice, whereas you think the Golden Rule is superfluous and unnecessary for commutative justice. In <this post> and elsewhere you have effectively claimed that the Golden Rule is about equality, and that justice is not based on equality. Instead, "equality is based on justice." You would say that the Golden Rule tells us to treat people equally, but the reason we treat people equally is because each person has an absolute due. It is this absolute due that is important; equality follows but it is a derivative or superfluous concept, for on your view equality (and the Golden Rule) are always reducible to the absolute due of justice, and "is not any sort of principle in its own right."

I disagree, but to be clear, I do not consider myself an Egalitarian. I think Western Egalitarianism succumbs to all of the critiques you have brought forth. Namely, I think it is superfluous. Nevertheless, I think that the form of equality that the Golden Rule is based on is substantive, is central to justice, and is distinct from Egalitarianism.

Good_Egg wrote: April 22nd, 2022, 7:16 pm
Leontiskos wrote: April 21st, 2022, 8:21 pm In any case, one of the things we are driving at is the <question> both I and CIN asked you in the other thread.
I think you're asking me here to go into more detail about what it is that is due to people and how we know that. If a man wishes to be just - to give each person their due - how does he go about identifying what that is ?
Yes, that's right.
Good_Egg wrote: April 22nd, 2022, 7:16 pmIt seems to me that one category of dues arises from promises made. I owe you what I've promised to give you.

And by extension there are "implied promises". If we have been friends, then you are due from me the treatment customary between friends in whatever subculture we inhabit, even if there was never an explicit contract to that effect.

Another category of dues would be to do with the restorative justice that others have already mentioned. Which is to say that you are due from me restitution for past wrongs that I have done you.

And then, alongside the dues from the positive and negative aspects of our particular relationship, there are the dues to complete strangers, that which is common to all people whether we've a past relationship or not, whether we're close neighbours or not.

Some of these are fundamental rights. As a human being your due is to be treated as a human being. As such, I owe it to you not to take your life, your body or your possessions without your consent. These are the big things.
Okay, so you've enumerated a list of things that are due to human beings in an absolute sense:
  • Keeping promises
  • Making restitution
  • Abstaining from taking another's life
  • Abstaining from kidnapping
  • Abstaining from theft
I agree that all of these things are due to human beings. The big question here concerns that last part of your first sentence, "...you're asking me here to go into more detail about what it is that is due to people and how we know that."

Are these five things separate and distinct? Are they brute moral facts? Do we come to know them each separately? Is it through simple intuition? Are they known a priori? Is there a reasoning process involved?
Good_Egg wrote: April 22nd, 2022, 7:16 pmWhen it comes to the small things - do I owe it to you not to park in your customary space ? Not to exhale cigarette smoke where you may breathe it in ? Not to speak disparagingly of some group to which you may feel you belong ? - there is not the same level of consensus.

And this is where, I suggest, the golden rule comes in. If there is symmetry between us, then there is no reason why what is due to you should differ from what is due to me in the same circumstances.

We may disagree about how much of what is common can be privatised by custom. We may disagree about how far the space which is common or public is for everyone to use as seems good to them or for nobody to use in any way that seems not-good to anyone else. But in that disagreement, I am not being unjust if I apply the same standard to you as I apply to myself.

[...]

I hope that gives some idea of justice as a much bigger notion, to which equality is not central.
Okay, thanks for that. To be clear, you would say that equality and the Golden Rule are not central when it comes to the big things, but only "when it comes to the small things"?

The first thing I wonder is whether the Golden Rule can be used to unify your various brute moral facts. As of right now they are very opaque, and we have no idea how such moral facts are known. Would the Golden Rule suffice to unite and ground them?

I also wonder about torts and slights. You did say that the Golden Rule can be leveraged to account for "the small things," but what about more significant infractions of the same kind? For instance: defamation, dumping trash on private property, invasion of privacy, etc.? Do you think all such things are independent brute moral facts, or do you think they are accounted for by a principle of equality such as the Golden Rule?
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 , there's a lot in that, and I'm surely not going to be able to satisfy you easily. What follows attempts to make a start; I may come back to this post several times.
Leontiskos wrote: April 22nd, 2022, 8:58 pm The big question here concerns that last part of your first sentence, "...you're asking me here to go into more detail about what it is that is due to people and how we know that."

Are these five things separate and distinct? Are they brute moral facts? Do we come to know them each separately? Is it through simple intuition? Are they known a priori? Is there a reasoning process involved?
I'm weak on epistemology. But it seems to me that we use general principles to explain.

So for example, I'm using promise-keeping as an explanation for why you should pay your rent. And if you ask "How do I know that I should pay my rent?", that explanation breaks the question down into two parts - "How do I know that I promised to pay rent?" and "How do I know that promises should be kept?".

Where the first part is empirical and specific, and the second part general and logical (and includes the hard question of where oughts come from).

My discussion of dues identified 3 explanatory principles:
- promise-keeping
- restitution
- acknowledging reality = treating things as they are.

Where the third one includes treating people as people (even when they're your enemies) and truths as truths (even when spoken by your enemies) and good deeds as good deeds (even when performed by your enemies).

I'm inclined to think I can do no better than to claim all three as self-evident, answering "brute fact" or the equivalent. As a way of addressing the general question "how do I know that I should do these things?".

And focus on the more-empirical specifics of "how do I know that treating people as people means not killing/raping/robbing them ?". Or dumping trash on their property ...

Does that make any sense at all ?
To be clear, you would say that equality and the Golden Rule are not central when it comes to the big things, but only "when it comes to the small things"?
I'm saying that people disagree in the small things, which tend to be about the right balance to be struck where rights appear to be in conflict. Even when there is consensus about the big things, or about what those rights are.

And that I see the Golden Rule as distinguishing between a man who acts justly within a different belief (about the trade-off) and one who acts unjustly.

For example, we may disagree about where a right to free speech ends and a right to freedom from defamation begins. If you grant me the same freedom to insult you as you claim to have to insult me - the Golden Rule test - then whilst I may disagree with where you draw that line, I cannot claim that you are unjust. Because you are granting everyone their due as you see it.

This contrasts with a person who claims it wrong to insult groups they sympathise with, but feels free to insult groups they don't sympathise with. Who is unjust - there is no resolution of the basic disagreement which would make both halves of their behaviour accord with the principle of giving everyone their due.

(I think this echoes the Kantian version of the Golden Rule, about acting in accordance with what one wills to be a universal rule. But I never fully understood Kant).

Now you may be able to expand that application such that the Golden Rule underpins all of justice. But I'll believe it when I see it - it's not evident to me.

And any such explanation has to cover both halves of the question - how do we know that we should obey the golden rule , and how do we know that the rule requires any particular action ?
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
EricPH
Posts: 449
Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by EricPH »

Good_Egg wrote: April 23rd, 2022, 6:36 am Now you may be able to expand that application such that the Golden Rule underpins all of justice. But I'll believe it when I see it - it's not evident to me.
The Golden Rule is above and beyond all laws. All the laws are written so that we might try and understand the Golden Rule. All the law and the prophets of God hang on the greatest commandments, the Christian version of the golden rule. If you really loved all your neighbours as you loved yourself, you would not need any other laws like don't kill, cheat, or run of with their wife etc.

To love all your neighbours as you love yourself; is beyond what any law can achieve; because it takes kindness into account. What would we do voluntarily and freely for our neighbours who might be in need?
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by JackDaydream »

EricPH wrote: April 23rd, 2022, 7:45 am
Good_Egg wrote: April 23rd, 2022, 6:36 am Now you may be able to expand that application such that the Golden Rule underpins all of justice. But I'll believe it when I see it - it's not evident to me.
The Golden Rule is above and beyond all laws. All the laws are written so that we might try and understand the Golden Rule. All the law and the prophets of God hang on the greatest commandments, the Christian version of the golden rule. If you really loved all your neighbours as you loved yourself, you would not need any other laws like don't kill, cheat, or run of with their wife etc.

To love all your neighbours as you love yourself; is beyond what any law can achieve; because it takes kindness into account. What would we do voluntarily and freely for our neighbours who might be in need?
I agree with you that the golden rule seems to be central to justice. The idea of loving one's neighbour as oneself was based on the development of the OT idea of 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'. In this sense it is about going beyond retributive justice towards empathy and compassion.
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 23rd, 2022, 6:36 am @@Leontiskos , there's a lot in that, and I'm surely not going to be able to satisfy you easily. What follows attempts to make a start; I may come back to this post several times.
Okay, fair enough. I think what we are doing now is helpful because we are setting out the problems that will need to be explained by either an appeal to an equality principle or an appeal to an absolute (non-equality) principle (or principles). In this post I am going to focus mostly on drawing out these problems or explananda so that we will have them clearly before us.
Good_Egg wrote: April 23rd, 2022, 6:36 amNow you may be able to expand that application such that the Golden Rule underpins all of justice. But I'll believe it when I see it - it's not evident to me.
Elenchus aside, I think there is also an absolute component that is required. But I do think that something like the Golden Rule is also necessary and central.
Good_Egg wrote: April 23rd, 2022, 6:36 am
Leontiskos wrote: April 22nd, 2022, 8:58 pm The big question here concerns that last part of your first sentence, "...you're asking me here to go into more detail about what it is that is due to people and how we know that."

Are these five things separate and distinct? Are they brute moral facts? Do we come to know them each separately? Is it through simple intuition? Are they known a priori? Is there a reasoning process involved?
I'm weak on epistemology. But it seems to me that we use general principles to explain.

So for example, I'm using promise-keeping as an explanation for why you should pay your rent. And if you ask "How do I know that I should pay my rent?", that explanation breaks the question down into two parts - "How do I know that I promised to pay rent?" and "How do I know that promises should be kept?".

Where the first part is empirical and specific, and the second part general and logical (and includes the hard question of where oughts come from).

My discussion of dues identified 3 explanatory principles:
- promise-keeping
- restitution
- acknowledging reality = treating things as they are.

Where the third one includes treating people as people (even when they're your enemies) and truths as truths (even when spoken by your enemies) and good deeds as good deeds (even when performed by your enemies).

I'm inclined to think I can do no better than to claim all three as self-evident, answering "brute fact" or the equivalent. As a way of addressing the general question "how do I know that I should do these things?".

And focus on the more-empirical specifics of "how do I know that treating people as people means not killing/raping/robbing them ?". Or dumping trash on their property ...

Does that make any sense at all ?
Generally speaking, it makes sense. That said, I'm not sure whether your third principle is actually explanatory. I'm not sure whether or how it helps to explain things, especially when the original question was, "How does one go about determining how well people should be treated?" For that reason I am going to ignore that third principle until you clarify how you see it.

I agree that promise-keeping is a general principle that applies to many different questions of justice. I actually see truth-telling as the more general principle of promise-keeping, but we can set that aside as a separate principle for the sake of argument.

Restitution is one of those things that is so general that it also seems to lack explanatory power. Since it is so general and complex it seems to struggle as a brute fact or as a single principle. Nevertheless, we must still ask what restitution is, why it is necessary, and how it is determined (that is, how much restitution an offender is required to make, which you began to touch on <here>).
Good_Egg wrote: April 23rd, 2022, 6:36 am
Leontiskos wrote: April 22nd, 2022, 8:58 pmTo be clear, you would say that equality and the Golden Rule are not central when it comes to the big things, but only "when it comes to the small things"?
I'm saying that people disagree in the small things, which tend to be about the right balance to be struck where rights appear to be in conflict. Even when there is consensus about the big things, or about what those rights are.

And that I see the Golden Rule as distinguishing between a man who acts justly within a different belief (about the trade-off) and one who acts unjustly...
Okay, interesting. So you would say that someone who follows the Golden Rule acts justly at least in some sense, even when he is acting immorally or contrary to "absolute justice." 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?

If so, this is at least a small way in which the "absolute part of justice" does not capture everything. Namely, it fails to capture what the Golden Rule does capture in the example given.
Good_Egg wrote: April 23rd, 2022, 6:36 amNow you may be able to expand that application such that the Golden Rule underpins all of justice. But I'll believe it when I see it - it's not evident to me.

And any such explanation has to cover both halves of the question - how do we know that we should obey the golden rule , and how do we know that the rule requires any particular action ?
True.

So we currently have explananda* of promise keeping and restitution (the latter of which must be further defined). We have two smaller candidates: truth-telling and the Categorical Imperative. Before we move on I think we do need to find a general principle that accounts for cases of injustice apart from promise keeping, such as murder and theft. Maybe your third principle is thought to account for those? If so, please explain.


* I should say potential explananda, for we are wondering if more general principles such as the Golden Rule can explain them. They may also be brute moral facts.
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 »

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.
"As usual... it depends."
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 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).
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 22nd, 2022, 8:58 pm To be clear, you would say that equality and the Golden Rule are not central when it comes to the big things, but only "when it comes to the small things"?
Maybe big/small wasn't the best way to put it. Try again, Egg.

On the other thread, we were discussing whether there are eternal objective moral truths. Some tend to talk of morality as if it is all objective truth. Others see the absence of any moral proposition that commands universal assent as evidence that morality is entirely subjective.

If you think that murder is objectively wrong, then it's wrong for a reason other than contravention of the Golden Rule. Thinking of the school shootings and other mass killings in the US in recent decades, we don't think that these are justified - made just - by a death wish on the part of the perpetrator. "You wouldn't want to be killed therefore don't kill others" is thus an inadequate basis for forbidding murder.

Whereas if you think that privacy or free speech is an issue on which people can legitimately hold different views - i.e. that there's no right answer to which we can reason our way - then a golden rule ethic ("whatever rights of free speech or privacy you claim for yourself you should extend to others") still works. Telling us to apply our subjective standards universally may be the best we can do in the absence of objective standards.

In other words, where (if ? When ?) there are objective moral rules, you should follow them regardless of how you would like to be treated. So no, the golden rule is not central to justice. Whereas, if there don't seem to be accepted moral rules, a necessary condition for just action might be to follow what you think the moral rule should be (I.e. apply the golden rule). If you're not even doing that, how can you possibly claim to be just ? So the golden rule comes into play in the grey areas.


And then the other half of the disagreement is whether the golden rule is actually an equality principle. Does it inherently require you to treat Bill and Fred the same ?

It applies the same subjective (related to your own desires) standard to your treatment of both, but that's the weak equality of universality that any universal principle provides. Not knocking it - universality is important. But it's not what most people who argue for more equality mean by that.

Is the golden rule more strongly equality-focussed than that ?

No because as a principle of justice it says what is due to each, but doesn't forbid you from treating anyone better than that. Justice is important but there is also Mercy.

No, because belief in the golden rule doesn't prevent or discourage you from finding some difference between them to be morally significant and thus justify different treatment. (E.g. "who started the fight ?")

The sense of fairness that might impel you to treat them equally is not, it seems to me, rooted in the golden rule, but rather to do with the value of impartiality.

Which doesn't prevent you having a subjective desire to be treated the same as your peers, which the golden rule then impels you to follow in your treatment of Bill and Fred. But that's not inherent in the golden rule. You might equally have a subjective desire to be treated better than others whenever you've done better than they have in any way.
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by Sy Borg »

What equality? Where?

Laws are devised by the powerful for the benefit of the powerful. This has always been the case.

Equality normally finds its way into public policy through pragmatism. That people can only be controlled if they have something to lose. Prosperity for the powerful generally requires some level of utilitarianism for the sake of stability. Kim's level of domination in NK would not be possible with a larger population and land area, or without big brother China propping up their puppet despot.

Western parliaments devise equality-based laws piecemeal. Once it was based on interpretations of Jesus's words and his famous support for the poor, and now it's based on humanitarian theory, but these laws are tidbits thrown to plebs, not the main game. The main game, the laws that make the most difference, relates to the powerful entrenching their power.

I'm only observing, not complaining. Throughout all of history, the powerful have worked primarily for their own benefit, yet the standard of living of average people has improved significantly. I'm more concerned with the injustices perpetrated on other species by humans.
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