Let
me try to pull some threads together here and sum up what you have
been saying.
I asked you to think about the following rule
To each his or her due
This is an ancient rule of justice. It may not cover all cases. It
probably doesn't. But it covers a great many, including some of the
most important.
This rule may seem empty by itself. It immediately raises questions
about what a person is due. But I think we have given a partial
answer to this ancient question. We have said that doing justice, or
giving each his or her due, involves the following:
- Treat equal cases equally and unequal cases unequally
- When cases are different, the treatment must be
proportionate to the differences.
- We cannot decide when cases are equal or which treatment
is appropriate without a larger theory of justice. The
larger theory must tell us which circumstances are
relevant. These might include such aspects as need, merit,
desert, productivity, and others.
- In some cases, judgments about relevance are moral
judgments.
- The weight or ordering of the various relevant
circumstances must be specified in our larger theory of
justice
- The injunction to treat equal cases equally is not
analytically true, but the claim that justice requires
that we treat equal cases equally is analytically true.
|
A great deal of what we are saying can be summed up in what Fred was
saying: that justice stands opposed to arbitrary decisions and actions.
But we must also notice what Ayesha was the first to point out: that
the connection between justice and non-arbitrary action is intrinsic.
It is built into the concept of justice itself.
Having said all that, however, we are still left with a problem. As
Vera said, the injunction to treat equal cases equally does not, by
itself, have any operational implications. It doesn't tell us what to
do. We saw how Perelman and many other philosophers consider it a formal
principle. Everything depends on what count as equal cases and what
counts as equal or appropriate treatment. The concept of a larger theory of justice is very, very important
here. That's why I want us to discuss one of the best known theories,
the theory of John Rawls, in our next session.
|