The Principles of Justice, care of Don Berkich:
We should treat similar cases in similar ways, possibly according to:
The Principle of Equality: Benefits and burdens should be equally distributed.
The Principle of Need: Those with greater need should receive more benefits so as attain an eventual equilibrium.
The Principle of Contribution: Everyone should benefit according to the extent to which they produce.
The Principle of Effort: Everyone should benefit according to the extent of their efforts.
This post will only interrogate the overarching Principle of Justice: we should treat similar cases in similar ways. The Principles of Equality, Need, Contribution, and Effort will get their due in subsequent posts.
Let the questions begin!
Why should we treat similar cases in similar ways?
How does one determine if cases are similar?
Cases have a multitude of characteristics. By which criteria does one decide whether a characteristic is relevant or irrelevant for the purpose of comparison?
How does one guard against circularity in determining relevant and irrelevant points of comparison? That is, starting with the conclusion – that is unjust! – then circling back to the points of comparison to justify the conclusion: the end dictating the means.
In other words, how does one avoid choosing what counts and does not count for the purpose of comparison based on the outcome one desires? (Outcome being similar or dissimilar treatment, per the Justice Principle)
Each case is unique if looked at closely enough. Comparison is an act of abstraction. Abstraction is a matter of degree. How does one choose the level of abstraction upon which to make a comparison?
More than other moral principles, the principle of justice seems especially susceptible to being hijacked by sentiment masquerading as reason. That sentiment is indignation (or its beefier cousin, outrage). Indignation is pretty much a knee-jerk reaction to perceived injustice and is associated with a desire to punish the guilty party. The guilty party may be seen as having too much of a good thing or too little of a bad thing. The urge to justice then focuses on eliminating the imbalance.
Reference:
Daniel Kahneman and Cass R. Sunstein, "Indignation: Psychology, Politics, Law" (University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper No. 171, 2007).