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 24th, 2022, 7:21 pm
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"?
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.
Okay, interesting. 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. As I said in <my more recent post>:

"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?"

It seems to me that these two principles each apply to all cases. Of course, as you say, if absolute justice is unknown in some scenario, then we would have to make do with the single principle of the Golden Rule.
Good_Egg wrote: April 24th, 2022, 7:21 pmAnd 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.
So again, the equality of the Golden Rule clearly does not say that we must treat Bill and Fred the same. Your claim that the Golden Rule asserts equal rights for all seems to be an inaccurate formulation, as I argued in <this post>.

...From that same post:

"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>."

...So the Golden Rule does not say to treat Bill and Fred the same. It does not say, "Treat every person you meet the same as you treat every other person you meet." The equality that the Golden Rule asserts is an equality between our actions and our desired passions (where "actions" are what we do to others and "passions" are what is done to us).
Good_Egg wrote: April 24th, 2022, 7:21 pmThe 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.
Hmm. Let's talk a bit about punishment and restitution, for that is one of the explananda you enumerated in <this post>.

I'm not sure how you understand the inner workings of punishment and restitution. Presumably you believe they are based on some absolute principle of justice that is known without reference to equality? Do you have any ideas about how that might work, or thoughts on the <questions I raised>? Namely, "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...)."

Some quotes from Aquinas that bear on the topic were already brought up in <this post>. For Aquinas <contrapassum> is the principle of retributive justice:

"Retaliation [contrapassum] denotes equal passion repaid for previous action; and the expression applies most properly to injurious passions and actions, whereby a man harms the person of his neighbor; for instance if a man strike, that he be struck back. . . In all these cases, however, repayment must be made on a basis of equality according to the requirements of commutative justice, namely that the meed of passion be equal to the action."

The example of theft comes later in that same article, and it is the same one that I quoted earlier:

"(I)n like manner when a man despoils another of his property against the latter's will, the action surpasses the passion if he be merely deprived of that thing, because the man who caused another's loss, himself would lose nothing. . . " (Summa Theologiae, II-II.61.4).

Aquinas is clear that the problem with the solution that <AverageBozo> proposed is that the passion repaid for the previous action is unequal to the previous action. That is, in the case of theft, to impose a passion on the thief by which he loses the $50 he stole would be less than the action that the thief imposed on his victim. That is where the remainder of the injustice lies, and that is why the thief must pay more than the $50 he stole. The restitution and retribution are in a sense re-establishing the relation of equality between the thief and his victim.

I am going to leave it there for now, because that is probably a lot to take in, but you can perhaps now begin to see how the other questions about restitution can begin to be answered by Aquinas' account. Here is the body of the relevant article in full for those who are interested:

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

"I answer that, Retaliation (contrapassum) denotes equal passion repaid for previous action; and the expression applies most properly to injurious passions and actions, whereby a man harms the person of his neighbor; for instance if a man strike, that he be struck back. This kind of just is laid down in the Law (Exod 21:23, 24): He shall render life for life, eye for eye, etc. And since also to take away what belongs to another is to do an unjust thing, it follows that second retaliation consists in this also, that whosoever causes loss to another, should suffer loss in his belongings. This just loss is also found in the Law (Exod 22:1): If any man steal an ox or a sheep, and kill or sell it, he shall restore five oxen for one ox and four sheep for one sheep. Third retaliation is transferred to voluntary commutations, where action and passion are on both sides, although voluntariness detracts from the nature of passion, as stated above (Q. 59, A. 3).

In all these cases, however, repayment must be made on a basis of equality according to the requirements of commutative justice, namely that the meed of passion be equal to the action. Now there would not always be equality if passion were in the same species as the action. Because, in the first place, when a person injures the person of one who is greater, the action surpasses any passion of the same species that he might undergo, wherefore he that strikes a prince, is not only struck back, but is much more severely punished. In like manner when a man despoils another of his property against the latter’s will, the action surpasses the passion if he be merely deprived of that thing, because the man who caused another’s loss, himself would lose nothing, and so he is punished by making restitution several times over, because not only did he injure a private individual, but also the common weal, the security of whose protection he has infringed. Nor again would there be equality of passion in voluntary commutations, were one always to exchange one’s chattel for another man’s, because it might happen that the other man’s chattel is much greater than our own: so that it becomes necessary to equalize passion and action in commutations according to a certain proportionate commensuration, for which purpose money was invented. Hence retaliation is in accordance with commutative justice: but there is no place for it in distributive justice, because in distributive justice we do not consider the equality between thing and thing or between passion and action (whence the expression contrapassum), but according to proportion between things and persons, as stated above (A. 2)."


(Summa Theologiae, II-II.61.4)
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 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).
I disagree entirely. It is hubris to assume that what qualifies as beneficial to oneself is beneficial to everyone else.
"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 25th, 2022, 12:19 am
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).
I disagree entirely. It is hubris to assume that what qualifies as beneficial to oneself is beneficial to everyone else.
Why are you introducing this new term, "beneficial"? I don't see that term anywhere in either the Golden Rule or the "Platinum Rule."

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.

The problem with the "Platinum Rule" is that it fumbles the whole notion of a universal, common nature in favor of mere particular wills--wills divorced from any rational grounding. It substitutes meat for milk, for we have no duty to give people their particular wants and desires. Our duty is to give to others that portion of their wills that are rational, or in accord with reason, and those "willings" are precisely the ones which are proximate to our common nature and are intelligible to all.

So yeah, the "Platinum Rule" is a relativistic moral setback. Duty relates to what others will legitimately, not what they will idiosyncratically, and the movement from the Golden Rule to the "Platinum Rule" is precisely a movement towards idiosyncratic willing and its formal recognition.

(NB: Good_Egg - this is a great example of my assertion that <"I think there is also an absolute component that is required">. The emphasis on whim is found in the "Platinum Rule" crowd.)
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 25th, 2022, 12:43 am
LuckyR wrote: April 25th, 2022, 12:19 am
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).
I disagree entirely. It is hubris to assume that what qualifies as beneficial to oneself is beneficial to everyone else.
Why are you introducing this new term, "beneficial"? I don't see that term anywhere in either the Golden Rule or the "Platinum Rule."

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.

The problem with the "Platinum Rule" is that it fumbles the whole notion of a universal, common nature in favor of mere particular wills--wills divorced from any rational grounding. It substitutes meat for milk, for we have no duty to give people their particular wants and desires. Our duty is to give to others that portion of their wills that are rational, or in accord with reason, and those "willings" are precisely the ones which are proximate to our common nature and are intelligible to all.

So yeah, the "Platinum Rule" is a relativistic moral setback. Duty relates to what others will legitimately, not what they will idiosyncratically, and the movement from the Golden Rule to the "Platinum Rule" is precisely a movement towards idiosyncratic willing and its formal recognition.

(NB: @Good_Egg - this is a great example of my assertion that <"I think there is also an absolute component that is required">. The emphasis on whim is found in the "Platinum Rule" crowd.)
You are free, of course to receive my favorite flavor of ice cream, though my guess is you would prefer your favorite flavor...
"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 »

LuckyR wrote: April 25th, 2022, 2:55 am You are free, of course to receive my favorite flavor of ice cream, though my guess is you would prefer your favorite flavor...
That seems a good example. Of interpreting the Golden Rule at different levels of abstraction. Which is where much of the ambiguity in its application lies.

But I'm not convinced that's the big issue here.

Clearly, buying an ice cream for someone who likes ice cream is doing them a good deed. But if we're talking about justice, then part of the question is when it is a good deed that is their due, and when it goes beyond duty into an act of kindness.

A naive reading of the Golden Rule is that it is my duty to buy you an ice cream whenever I fancy one (i.e. whenever I'm led to think "wouldn't it be nice if someone bought me an ice cream").

Leontiskos' version has the merit of removing my whim. Maybe under his formulation it is my duty to buy you an ice cream only when I rationally consider that our common human nature suggests that you would appreciate one ("anyone would want an ice cream on a day like today").

Your Platinum Rule makes me out to be your servant - it is my duty to treat you to an ice cream whenever you desire to be so treated.

I favour the Kantian interpretation. Bearing in mind the desirability of ice cream, the time and expense of buying it, and the problems if several different people buy me one at the same time, (not least consuming them fast enough to prevent melting...) what ice cream purchasing policy can I will to be a universal rule ?

The answer to that might be "buy your own".
"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 25th, 2022, 6:42 pmClearly, buying an ice cream for someone who likes ice cream is doing them a good deed. But if we're talking about justice, then part of the question is when it is a good deed that is their due, and when it goes beyond duty into an act of kindness.
Right, and no one is due idiosyncratic desires in justice. The Golden Rule binds a community together in justice. The "Platinum Rule" is more of a form of postmodern moralizing than something inherently related to justice or ethics.
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: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by Sy Borg »

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.
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 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."
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 »

Good_Egg wrote: April 25th, 2022, 6:42 pm
LuckyR wrote: April 25th, 2022, 2:55 am You are free, of course to receive my favorite flavor of ice cream, though my guess is you would prefer your favorite flavor...
That seems a good example. Of interpreting the Golden Rule at different levels of abstraction. Which is where much of the ambiguity in its application lies.

But I'm not convinced that's the big issue here.

Clearly, buying an ice cream for someone who likes ice cream is doing them a good deed. But if we're talking about justice, then part of the question is when it is a good deed that is their due, and when it goes beyond duty into an act of kindness.

A naive reading of the Golden Rule is that it is my duty to buy you an ice cream whenever I fancy one (i.e. whenever I'm led to think "wouldn't it be nice if someone bought me an ice cream").

@ Leontiskos' version has the merit of removing my whim. Maybe under his formulation it is my duty to buy you an ice cream only when I rationally consider that our common human nature suggests that you would appreciate one ("anyone would want an ice cream on a day like today").

Your Platinum Rule makes me out to be your servant - it is my duty to treat you to an ice cream whenever you desire to be so treated.

I favour the Kantian interpretation. Bearing in mind the desirability of ice cream, the time and expense of buying it, and the problems if several different people buy me one at the same time, (not least consuming them fast enough to prevent melting...) what ice cream purchasing policy can I will to be a universal rule ?

The answer to that might be "buy your own".
Close, 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.
"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 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.
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
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by Sculptor1 »

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.
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 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.
Some thought along those lines had occurred to me. If someone is obese, are you doing them a favour by buying them an ice cream ?

But then I thought that the stipulation "for someone who likes ice cream" covers it.

It is possible to prefer not to eat ice cream because although the sensation is pleasant, the negative
impact on the waistline and consequent overall health outweighs the pleasure. A person with such a view has at least mixed feelings and on balance a negative attitude to consuming ice cream. So it's legitimate to exclude them from the category of those who like it.

But you might want to substitute "want" for "like" in the above, and reserve "like" for those who appreciate the taste.
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.
So 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).
"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 »

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.
Hmm, but we are talking about what justice is rather than what is needed to bring it about. 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. 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.
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
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Leontiskos wrote: April 26th, 2022, 5:24 pm
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.
Hmm, but we are talking about what justice is rather than what is needed to bring it about.
"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.
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.
I never said Justice is power. But they go hand in hand. Equality has no power and so plays no part in practical justice.
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.

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.
You are not living in the same world that I am.
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.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is Justice based on Equality?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Rather late into the picture comes the UNUDHR, whose first article sounds very promising...

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

This is all very well, but it is factually inaccurate. It might be considered by many, even most, as a marvellous aspiration. But such a state of affairs has never been the case. And scratch the surface of the majority of people and you will soon learn that they have in mind many groups of people that they think this article should not apply to.
Such exceptionalism applies for their countrymen and against others. Often the categories of distinction will be colour, race and religion.
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