(Click here to continue on the main path)

I want to point out something here. Suppose we take the rule 'treat equal cases equally' and interpret it to imply that by default people should be treated equally unless relevant differences can be are found that would justify treating them differently.

This interpretation is important because it means that in the absence of relevant information, we would opt for equal treatment.

Of course, the criteria for deciding whether cases are similar would have to be clear. And the base of comparison would have to be clear. In other words, 'equal to what' would have to be clear, perhaps from context. It might mean, as Ayesha suggested 'equal to white people.' Or it might mean 'equal to people who are not handicapped.' Or it might mean something else.

But there are lots of cases in which the relevant information is absent, and this would help us to decide what to do in those cases. It really would have some important implications for public policy. The burden of proof would be put on those who argue for treating people differently.