Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Aristotle's proportional justice requires treating equal cases equally and unequal cases unequally in proportion to morally relevant differences.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Identifying 'morally relevant differences' requires prior moral theory; the principle doesn't generate substantive answers.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Different people reasonably disagree on which differences matter, making proportional justice indeterminate in practice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Focusing on proportion risks justifying severe inequalities if society deems certain groups less morally worthy.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Treating identical cases identically is a basic requirement of fairness and avoids arbitrary discrimination.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Proportional responses to differences reflect moral reality: greater harms deserve greater remedies.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
This principle reconciles equality with merit, allowing justice systems to reward virtue and punish vice appropriately.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.