(Return to main path)

That's interesting. I agree that the two people in the library are being treated unequally. And I'm glad that the principle we are discussing allows that people can be treated unequally and still be treated justly.

Sometimes in our country we start with the premise that everyone should be treated equally and then argue that for different people equal treatment is very different. In part, we do this because our constitution promises people "equal protection" and we all want to argue within that framework.

For example, someone might say that handicapped people and non-handicapped people have a right to be treated equally. Then he could go on to say that "equal treatment" for the handicapped person means something very different from what it means for the person who is not handicapped.

If you take this approach, you end up saying that "equal treatment" for the handicapped person means being provided with an elevator while "equal treatment" for the non-handicapped person means being provided with a stairway.

That doesn't sound so bad in the case of the library; but what happens when we are talking about murderers and non-murderers? Do we then say that "equal treatment" for the murderer means incarceration while "equal treatment" for the non-murderer means freedom? I think that stretches the ordinary meaning of the terms beyond recognition.

I would rather say what we are saying; namely, that justice requires, or at least allows, that different cases be treated differently.