(Return to main path)

The philosopher R. M. Hare once made an interesting argument. Suppose we had two copies of a painting or a photograph. They are the same except that one is signed and the other is not. What would we think if someone said "This one is beautiful, but the other is ugly." Wouldn't there be something logically wrong here? Doesn't talking about things being beautiful involve a commitment to being able to find reasons for our judgments? And if there are no relevant difference between objects, there cannot be any reason to judge them differently.

Is it the same with justice? Suppose someone said "Yes, the case of Tom and the case of Joe are alike in all relevant respects, but I think Tom should be executed and Joe should be let go. Would it involve the same sort of logical contradiction we find in the case of the two paintings?