(Click here to continue on the main path)

It seems to me that what counts as equal or unequal treatment leads us back to what we just said about relevance. Deciding whether treatment is equal depends on the relevant features of the treatment being the same. And relevance depends on the whole theory of justice within which our judgment is being made. As Professor Sidgwick said, it is 'theory bound.'

But I want to say something else. Maybe we should be asking a different question. We say 'Treat equal cases equally" and 'Treat unequal cases unequally.' And we know that only certain features of the cases and the treatment are relevant. But how far does that get us?

Suppose we know that two cases are different in relevant ways. And so we know that we should, from the point of view of justice, treat them differently. But there are all kinds of different ways of treating the cases. Murderers are different from non-murderers, and so they should be treated differently. But should they be rewarded? Executed? Imprisoned? Slapped on the wrist? Sent to a yoga class?

In other words, when cases are equal, which equal treatment is appropriate? And when cases are unequal, which of the many different unequal treatments is appropriate? Which one is just?