A hundredth re-read of the LotR - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Nogrod · 10-04-2008, 11:36 AM

That was a nice example of faireness.

In the philosophy of justice it's pretty standard to point out to three different ways of looking at justice and fairness.

In a case of "equal cases" it's intuitively right to treat people in a similar way - like they should get paid the same for the same job, or if you get the proverbial apple with your friend you share it cutting it in half.

But if the cases are different then you need principles for different treatment.

One is to treat one according to merit so everyone should get what they deserve - like a better worker should be paid better, or a morally good person earns a place in Heaven while the evil one deserves Hell.

The other is to think the treatment from the point of view of needs and abilities - coming to your example. Like I'm a worker with a decent salary so I should pay taxes to help those who are in a poorer position: I'm able to give so I should. Then again someone needs financial help because of losing a job, losing a partner... and it's fair those in need are helped.

But when are we dealing with "equal cases" and when not? Which are the differences that do count? And how do we choose between the different maxims if we think the cases are not the same?

What I think I was saying there earlier is that we oftentimes take the merit-view for granted and forget the need-view - and that deciding on what merits this or that is a bit problematic.

Btw. anyone who has time or wishes could bring forth the next chapter! I'm not able to go forwards with this for a few days I'm afraid as I will have no time to read further until midweek...

And let the discussion flow!

10-04-2008, 11:36 AM	#22
Nogrod Flame of the Ainulindalë Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Wearing rat's coat, crowskin, crossed staves in a field behaving as the wind behaves Posts: 9,308	That was a nice example of faireness. In the philosophy of justice it's pretty standard to point out to three different ways of looking at justice and fairness. In a case of "equal cases" it's intuitively right to treat people in a similar way - like they should get paid the same for the same job, or if you get the proverbial apple with your friend you share it cutting it in half. But if the cases are different then you need principles for different treatment. One is to treat one according to merit so everyone should get what they deserve - like a better worker should be paid better, or a morally good person earns a place in Heaven while the evil one deserves Hell. The other is to think the treatment from the point of view of needs and abilities - coming to your example. Like I'm a worker with a decent salary so I should pay taxes to help those who are in a poorer position: I'm able to give so I should. Then again someone needs financial help because of losing a job, losing a partner... and it's fair those in need are helped. But when are we dealing with "equal cases" and when not? Which are the differences that do count? And how do we choose between the different maxims if we think the cases are not the same? What I think I was saying there earlier is that we oftentimes take the merit-view for granted and forget the need-view - and that deciding on what merits this or that is a bit problematic. Btw. anyone who has time or wishes could bring forth the next chapter! I'm not able to go forwards with this for a few days I'm afraid as I will have no time to read further until midweek... And let the discussion flow! __________________ Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet...