(Click here to continue on the main path)

We started out trying to understand the rule:

Treat Equal Cases Equally

Then we realized that it was difficult to decide which cases were equal because there were always similarities and differences between cases. That led to the following question:

Which similarities and differences are relevant?

Some people claim that race is relevant to at least some questions of justice. Some claim that sex is relevant. Others claim that merit or need is relevant. I want to step back for a minute and ask a question about these claims -- a sort of meta-question.  I'm wondering just what kind of claims these are.

Are these scientific claims? Are they moral claims? Are they logical claims? Are they sometimes moral and sometimes scientific claims? Are they something else entirely?