Is Justice based on Equality?

[Leontiskos]

Lost my reply, so this is #2

Second attempt never quite captures the eloquence of the original.....

It doesn't.

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 we use the yardstick to measure equality, do we not? We could restate the Golden Rule, "Make the first term equal the second term." "Your treatment of others should be equivalent to the way that you yourself would like to be treated."

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 don't understand why you think I am referencing equality between persons. Several times throughout the thread I have clarified that I do not mean that, and at one point I even said that I agree with your critique of Egalitarianism. In my OP I specifically spoke about "some form of equality." Is there some place in the thread where I have said something that led you to conclude that I am talking about equality between persons?

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.

Well, we have been referencing a number of different aspects of justice, and I spoke about the way that the Golden Rule relates to retribution, and retribution to justice, in <this post> (which is also related to restitution and punishment). That is probably the clearest place that this has been discussed so far.

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.

Very well, but it will be important to distinguish between rights as the correlative of duty, and rights as the enumerated list of human rights. The former is much broader than the latter, for I have many more duties than any list of enumerated "human rights" will reflect.

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.

I think you can. Consider Matthew 18:31-35. In such a case the servant's hypocrisy is unjust, which is why he is punished. The Golden Rule is quite similar to this, for in the first place it opposes the injustice of hypocrisy. The unmerciful person who expects mercy is a hypocrite, and is thereby unjust. This is a more subtle form of justice: it is not legal justice, but it is nevertheless 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.

Rather, in both cases I am rejecting an unduly particularized interpretation. The reason the universalizations are not contradictory is because what is good for daughters or mothers is also good for human beings, for daughters and mothers are both human beings. The beauty of the Golden Rule lies precisely in its ability to respond to such nuance.

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.

For my part I would not want to hold that the road belongs solely to the drivers and that the road belongs solely to the pedestrians, because that would involve me in a contradiction. Nor would I want to waffle between these two positions each time I enter or exit a car. For me the basic problem is thus resolved by recognizing that the road belongs to both pedestrians and drivers, and that my treatment of both should reflect this fact.

Regarding assertiveness, I personally do not like to be treated in a way that lacks all assertiveness, and therefore I do not treat others that way (as you have probably noticed ). As I said earlier, I think there is an absolute aspect of the Golden Rule alongside the relative aspect. The relative aspect deals primarily with hypocrisy, but the absolute aspect is going to be rooted in beliefs about what is good for human beings. Feel free to press me on this absolute aspect, for that is clearly where your views are represented within my thinking.

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...

It has been awhile since I have compared Kant's Categorical Imperative to the Golden Rule. They are very similar, especially at first glance. To skirt that question, I would just agree that the situation you set up is problematic, but I don't see it as flowing from the Golden Rule. I think it is associated with another incorrect interpretation of the Golden Rule that is indeed prevalent in our contemporary society, "Treat others better than you would like to be treated." Only when we follow that rule does your conundrum arise. Like the "Platinum Rule," this other rule rings true at more superficial levels, but falls apart at deeper levels and under scrutiny.

[LuckyR]

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.

I agree that such an assumption is logical, but I don't see how it relates to the Golden and "Platinum" rules.

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.

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.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, though my use of the term "minority" does not necessarily imply racial minorities, it is a statistical description of numerically small groups of whatever sort is being evaluated.

I don't know what you mean by "entirely different" (as opposed to my description of "different"). Merely different will require the agent seeking to decide how to treat another, to look beyond themselves, that is to appreciate the context in which they are operating.

[Leontiskos]

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.

I agree that such an assumption is logical, but I don't see how it relates to the Golden and "Platinum" rules.

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.

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.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, though my use of the term "minority" does not necessarily imply racial minorities, it is a statistical description of numerically small groups of whatever sort is being evaluated.

Right, and to reiterate, 1) 'Minorities' and 'Marginalized' are not the same thing, 2) "I don't think that claim will hold up, but I would welcome you to give arguments for why you think it is so."

I don't know what you mean by "entirely different" (as opposed to my description of "different"). Merely different will require the agent seeking to decide how to treat another, to look beyond themselves, that is to appreciate the context in which they are operating.

Well you apparently thought that the Golden Rule was unable to account for the idea that I should give someone the ice cream they prefer rather than the ice cream I prefer. What you thought to be a different standard of treatment ultimately wasn't. Someone might initially think that everyone else loves Mint Chip ice cream as much as they do, but when they realize that some people prefer Camel Pecan they have no need to abandon the Golden Rule. Indeed, the Golden Rule is still the thing that is at play when provide the other person with Carmel Pecan.

It seems that the only way the Platinum Rule would win out over the Golden Rule is if entirely different standards of treatment apply to different people. For example, if I found someone who hates pleasurable sensations, then Carmel Pecan or any extrapolation thereof would become problematic. But this doesn't look to be a realistic scenario.

[LuckyR]

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.

I agree that such an assumption is logical, but I don't see how it relates to the Golden and "Platinum" rules.

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.

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.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, though my use of the term "minority" does not necessarily imply racial minorities, it is a statistical description of numerically small groups of whatever sort is being evaluated.

Right, and to reiterate, 1) 'Minorities' and 'Marginalized' are not the same thing, 2) "I don't think that claim will hold up, but I would welcome you to give arguments for why you think it is so."

I don't know what you mean by "entirely different" (as opposed to my description of "different"). Merely different will require the agent seeking to decide how to treat another, to look beyond themselves, that is to appreciate the context in which they are operating.

Well you apparently thought that the Golden Rule was unable to account for the idea that I should give someone the ice cream they prefer rather than the ice cream I prefer. What you thought to be a different standard of treatment ultimately wasn't. Someone might initially think that everyone else loves Mint Chip ice cream as much as they do, but when they realize that some people prefer Camel Pecan they have no need to abandon the Golden Rule. Indeed, the Golden Rule is still the thing that is at play when provide the other person with Carmel Pecan.

It seems that the only way the Platinum Rule would win out over the Golden Rule is if entirely different standards of treatment apply to different people. For example, if I found someone who hates pleasurable sensations, then Carmel Pecan or any extrapolation thereof would become problematic. But this doesn't look to be a realistic scenario.

Well, how much is too much? If we arbitrarily decide that the difference between chocolate and vanilla ice cream is not very different but the difference between chocolate ice cream and a punch in the face is "entirely" different, how about several of the infinite points along the spectrum between the two? Chocolate ice cream and a pork chop or a piece of raw broccoli or cup of cow's blood or a pound of manure?

It seems to me you're missing the reality that in this big world with numerous cultures and subcultures (and sub-subcultures), there are more real possible differences than come to mind at a cursory glance.

[Good_Egg]

As I look at the online news, I see the rumbling-on of a story about UK political leaders socialising with work colleagues after passing emergency Covid laws banning social gatherings.

And it seems to me an example of the Golden Rule being broken.

But one where people fall into two camps. Some think those laws were just, so that the core of the wrong was what the politicians did - put lives at risk by assisting the spread of Covid - and that the fact that they happened to be the people responsible for rightly passing such laws is incidental. It would have been wrong for anyone to hold such gatherings at that time.

And some think those laws were unjust. So that the core of the wrong was passing laws which breach individual rights (freedom of association). And it would have been wrong to do that regardless of whether they got together for a few beers afterward.

So on the one hand, what gets the readers incandescent with fury is the exceptionalism - the "one rule for us and another for the people" attitude. Both camps agree on that.

On the other hand, it seems that logically one camp or the other has to be right. And they differ as to which half of the inconsistent behaviour - which rule - is wrong.

So that we can know that the politicians acted wrongly - the Golden Rule makes this obvious. Even though there is no way of resolving the underlying disagreement as to which half of their behaviour was wrong.

What this slightly paradoxical example suggests to me is that the Golden Rule is more about how we can knowwhat is right or wrong than it is about the fundamentals of what is right or wrong.

[CIN]

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.

Do you want me to put on a long robe and sandals and go wander in the desert? Truth is truth. I think a lot of the problems you and I have talking to each other arise because you pay too much respect to the mental categories of earlier peoples who did not have the benefit of later philosophical methods. I am a post-Humean philosopher; I can't unlearn what has been learned since Hume, and it would be obscurantist to expect me to do so.

On the other hand, the "Platinum Rule" really does fit into the contemporary paradigm you are assuming.

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.

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.

Implying that I also am not very intelligent, because I keep looking for one? Thank you, kind sir.

For my views on moral objectivity, see my latest reply to Good Egg.

Aristotle told us over 2,000 years ago that phronesis is not an exact knowledge.

Remarks like this simply make me wonder whether you are just too timid to think things out for yourself. You do know that Aristotle sometimes got things wrong? Spontaneous generation, for instance. I gave up believing things just because some authority figure told me they were true over 50 years ago. We can never know whether there are limits to knowledge except by trying to know as much as we possibly can.

Discarding the Golden Rule because it is not a "100% reliable guide" is like discarding a bicycle because it doesn't cure cancer.

Or perhaps it's like discarding a bicycle because we now have motorbikes. But actually, I do not advocate discarding either the Golden Rule or the Platinum Rule; not in practical matters, not in a world where the rich and powerful grow every day more rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and powerless; not in a world where a power-hungry megalomaniac armed with super-weapons has so little understanding of or care for morality that he unleashes death and destruction on millions merely to feed his slavish adherence to the corrupting demon of nationalism.

[Leontiskos]

Well you apparently thought that the Golden Rule was unable to account for the idea that I should give someone the ice cream they prefer rather than the ice cream I prefer. What you thought to be a different standard of treatment ultimately wasn't. Someone might initially think that everyone else loves Mint Chip ice cream as much as they do, but when they realize that some people prefer Camel Pecan they have no need to abandon the Golden Rule. Indeed, the Golden Rule is still the thing that is at play when provide the other person with Carmel Pecan.

It seems that the only way the Platinum Rule would win out over the Golden Rule is if entirely different standards of treatment apply to different people. For example, if I found someone who hates pleasurable sensations, then Carmel Pecan or any extrapolation thereof would become problematic. But this doesn't look to be a realistic scenario.

Well, how much is too much? If we arbitrarily decide that the difference between chocolate and vanilla ice cream is not very different but the difference between chocolate ice cream and a punch in the face is "entirely" different, how about several of the infinite points along the spectrum between the two?

I think you're missing the point:

• LuckyR: The Golden Rule would require me to give you my favorite ice cream, rather than your favorite ice cream. The standard of treatment is "eating the ice cream that I personally prefer." (link)
• Leontiskos: Er, no. There is obviously an alternative and relevant standard of treatment. It is, "Eating the ice cream that the eater prefers."

We don't have to worry about "how much is too much." We just have to worry about whether there is a relevant and common standard of treatment. In the case of ice cream there obviously is (and the ice cream counterexample was a strawman). The only time there wouldn't be a relevant and common standard of treatment is if "entirely different standards of treatment apply to different people." That is precisely the case where the Platinum Rule would win out.

The difference between chocolate and vanilla is immaterial. What is at stake is whether the two options are united by a deeper and common principle. In the case of ice cream this deeper and common principle is obviously taste-enjoyment (where some enjoy and prefer the taste of chocolate and some enjoy and prefer the taste of vanilla).

[Leontiskos]

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.

Do you want me to put on a long robe and sandals and go wander in the desert? Truth is truth. I think a lot of the problems you and I have talking to each other arise because you pay too much respect to the mental categories of earlier peoples who did not have the benefit of later philosophical methods. I am a post-Humean philosopher; I can't unlearn what has been learned since Hume, and it would be obscurantist to expect me to do so.

The key is that pre-Humean philosophers were scores more intelligent than Hume, so what I would want you to do is to stop assuming that "newer is better." As we have seen in this thread with the ice cream example, a non-relativistic interpretation of the Golden Rule is scores more intelligent than a relativistic interpretation. Interpreting the Golden Rule in a sheerly relativistic and voluntaristic way is therefore a strawman.

Aristotle told us over 2,000 years ago that phronesis is not an exact knowledge.

Remarks like this simply make me wonder whether you are just too timid to think things out for yourself.

No, it's just that I actually read things. It means I don't have to reinvent the Pythagorean Theorem and I can look at questions that weren't already demonstrated thousands of years ago.

Many folks on this site are trying to invent a square wheel, and they don't seem to realize that a much better concept for the wheel preceded them by thousands of years.

On the other hand, the "Platinum Rule" really does fit into the contemporary paradigm you are assuming.

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.

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.

Implying that I also am not very intelligent, because I keep looking for one? Thank you, kind sir.

For my views on moral objectivity, see my latest reply to Good Egg.

Discarding the Golden Rule because it is not a "100% reliable guide" is like discarding a bicycle because it doesn't cure cancer.

Or perhaps it's like discarding a bicycle because we now have motorbikes. But actually, I do not advocate discarding either the Golden Rule or the Platinum Rule; not in practical matters, not in a world where the rich and powerful grow every day more rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and powerless; not in a world where a power-hungry megalomaniac armed with super-weapons has so little understanding of or care for morality that he unleashes death and destruction on millions merely to feed his slavish adherence to the corrupting demon of nationalism.

Here's the question again: "I mean, do you think there are objective moral principles which are superior to the Golden Rule?" Do you claim to have a "100% reliable guide"? Do you believe that such a thing is possible? If not, why criticize the Golden Rule on that basis?

For my views on moral objectivity, see my latest reply to Good Egg.

This one? Because there you were "forced to conclude that the choice between the two principles is necessarily subjective." In that post you seem to be proposing that a "100% reliable guide" does not exist.

[Leontiskos]

What this slightly paradoxical example suggests to me is that the Golden Rule is more about how we can knowwhat is right or wrong than it is about the fundamentals of what is right or wrong.

Interesting example, Good_Egg.

It seems to me that the Golden Rule is particularly good at identifying the wrong of hypocrisy, and this is what is going on in your example. The Golden Rule allows us to know and to understand hypocrisy. Secondarily, it gives us a means by which we can investigate the question "about the fundamentals of what is right or wrong" (for we can begin to understand moral duties by reflecting on our own desires and dues).

But if you remember, I was interested in comparing the Golden Rule to your own approach (link). Does your own approach provide a better way to discern "what is right or wrong"? Because it seems to me that enumerating a list of moral duties such as, "Keep promises," "Don't steal," etc., is essentially an argument from authority. It apparently doesn't offer us an explanation of why such things are right or wrong, or how we would come to derive that list for ourselves apart from authorities who bestow it upon us.

[Good_Egg]

...it seems to me that enumerating a list of moral duties such as, "Keep promises," "Don't steal," etc., is essentially an argument from authority. It apparently doesn't offer us an explanation of why such things are right or wrong, or how we would come to derive that list for ourselves apart from authorities who bestow it upon us.

You'll recall that I broke down what is due from me to you into 3 categories:
- that which is due because I chose to make it due (e.g. by promising it to you)
-that which is due in retribution or restitution because one of us has wronged the other
-that which is due from any human to another human, simply from my recognition of your human-ness, not arising from any past interaction between us.

You may think that there are other ways that a duty could arise; other "places" that a duty could come from. If so, please elaborate. But by interpreting this into a simple list, you're discarding whatever explanatory value such a 3-fold classification has. Saying where a duty comes from is part of the explanation.

I'm not saying that you should keep promises because I say so, or because some holy book says so, or because Aquinas says so. That would be an argument from authority. I think you should keep promises because that is included in what it means to promise.

If I understand him right, CIN doesn't think promises should be kept. He thinks (subject to certain qualifiers relating to equality which we're discussing on the other thread) that one should do what maximizes wellbeing if no promise is made. And do what maximizes wellbeing if one has promised to do so. And do what maximizes wellbeing if one has promised not to do that very thing. Which it seems to me amounts to a denial that promises are meaningful. A promise from him is a meaningless noise.

Similarly, I should treat you as a reasoning creative being who can meaningfully consent to whatever I might wish done with your body or the work of your hands. Because you are a reasoning creative being etc.

To rob you or steal from you would be to treat you as something less, as a non-person. As a thing that exists for the benefit of those of us who are real people.

No arbitrary rule, no "because I say so".

[Leontiskos]

...it seems to me that enumerating a list of moral duties such as, "Keep promises," "Don't steal," etc., is essentially an argument from authority. It apparently doesn't offer us an explanation of why such things are right or wrong, or how we would come to derive that list for ourselves apart from authorities who bestow it upon us.

You'll recall that I broke down what is due from me to you into 3 categories:
- that which is due because I chose to make it due (e.g. by promising it to you)
-that which is due in retribution or restitution because one of us has wronged the other
-that which is due from any human to another human, simply from my recognition of your human-ness, not arising from any past interaction between us.

You may think that there are other ways that a duty could arise; other "places" that a duty could come from. If so, please elaborate. But by interpreting this into a simple list, you're discarding whatever explanatory value such a 3-fold classification has. Saying where a duty comes from is part of the explanation.

I'm not saying that you should keep promises because I say so, or because some holy book says so, or because Aquinas says so. That would be an argument from authority. I think you should keep promises because that is included in what it means to promise.

If I understand him right, CIN doesn't think promises should be kept. He thinks (subject to certain qualifiers relating to equality which we're discussing on the other thread) that one should do what maximizes wellbeing if no promise is made. And do what maximizes wellbeing if one has promised to do so. And do what maximizes wellbeing if one has promised not to do that very thing. Which it seems to me amounts to a denial that promises are meaningful. A promise from him is a meaningless noise.

Similarly, I should treat you as a reasoning creative being who can meaningfully consent to whatever I might wish done with your body or the work of your hands. Because you are a reasoning creative being etc.

To rob you or steal from you would be to treat you as something less, as a non-person. As a thing that exists for the benefit of those of us who are real people.

No arbitrary rule, no "because I say so".

Okay, fair enough. So you are willing to go further and defend such things on the basis of deeper principles grounded in human nature or somesuch thing.

What about retribution, though?

[Leontiskos]

Here is an attempt to recreate the longer post that I again lost.

I think you should keep promises because that is included in what it means to promise.

[...]

Similarly, I should treat you as a reasoning creative being who can meaningfully consent to whatever I might wish done with your body or the work of your hands. Because you are a reasoning creative being etc.

I am glad to see that you are willing to give a rational account of your basic moral categories. I agree that promises ought to be kept because of the very nature of what a promise is, and that slavery is immoral because it is contrary to human nature, which is rational and creative. Neither of these accounts depends on the "relative part of justice." At the same time, I do not see how retribution--which is a very substantial part of justice--could ever be justified without recourse to the relative part of justice (i.e. "some form of equality"). If you think that retribution can be justified without recourse to the relative part of justice, I would be interested to see your solution. Recall that I gave a somewhat detailed explanation of how it could be justified by equality in <this post>, and that explanation is very closely related to the Golden Rule.

The second thing I would want to say is that the Golden Rule has multifaceted pedagogical value. One such facet lies in its ability to guide uneducated people to moral decisions. For example, most people do not understand the per se reasons for keeping promises or avoiding slavery (and the latter is especially true in America, where slavery has become an opaque taboo). All the same, the Golden Rule helps them avoid these immoral acts simply by noting that they themselves would not like to be the victim of broken promises or slavery. The underlying ground for this facet of the Golden Rule's pedagogy lies in the fact that the way we wish to be treated is not wholly unrelated to justice (and this is also why CIN's modern, voluntaristic interpretation of the Golden Rule is so pernicious).

[Sy Borg]

At the same time, I do not see how retribution--which is a very substantial part of justice--could ever be justified without recourse to the relative part of justice (i.e. "some form of equality").

At least some of the time, the act of separating a potentially dangerous and problematic person from society with incarceration provides deterrence for some, but exacerbates problems for others. A focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution tends to result in lower rates of recidivism.

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.a ... ce-system/

By the turn of the millennium, rehabilitative models were beginning to gain traction, mostly due to a major incarceration boom, which had left governments with little choice but to explore new models of criminal justice.

These innovative models recognised the potential to positively intervene in the lives of offenders, address their criminogenic needs, and restore them to high functioning member of society.

These initiatives were supported by a growing body of evidence showing that rehabilitation is generally far more successful at reducing recidivism than punishment; and that incarceration by itself may actually increase reoffending.

Rehabilitation frameworks saw an increase in onsite mental health support, a focus on prison architecture and design – to improve layout, aesthetics and acoustics – and a variety of new programs to support prisoner wellbeing.

[Leontiskos]

At the same time, I do not see how retribution--which is a very substantial part of justice--could ever be justified without recourse to the relative part of justice (i.e. "some form of equality").

At least some of the time, the act of separating a potentially dangerous and problematic person from society with incarceration provides deterrence for some, but exacerbates problems for others. A focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution tends to result in lower rates of recidivism.

That's an interesting opinion Sy Borg, but it doesn't have anything to do with my quote or this thread, which is about commutative justice (and secondarily, distributive justice). If you want to discuss rehabilitation and its relation to deterrence, retribution, or recidivism, I would suggest opening a new thread.

[Sy Borg]

At the same time, I do not see how retribution--which is a very substantial part of justice--could ever be justified without recourse to the relative part of justice (i.e. "some form of equality").

At least some of the time, the act of separating a potentially dangerous and problematic person from society with incarceration provides deterrence for some, but exacerbates problems for others. A focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution tends to result in lower rates of recidivism.

That's an interesting opinion Sy Borg, but it doesn't have anything to do with my quote or this thread, which is about commutative justice (and secondarily, distributive justice). If you want to discuss rehabilitation and its relation to deterrence, retribution, or recidivism, I would suggest opening a new thread.

Rehabilitation is relevant to any discussion about retributive justice. Obviously.

It's also obvious that justice is far more influenced by power than fluffy ideals like equality.