Shelly asked:

How is justice related to equality and how is equality related to the distinctive identities and other
circumstances of individuals such as age, race, and disability?

============

One aspect of justice is fair or equal treatment of human beings. People who call for equal (political)
treatment (practical maxim of equality) of human beings normally hold that all human beings, just
because they are human beings have the right to equal treatment in certain areas like the right to
vote, equal treatment in court but also equal opportunities e.g. regarding education and jobs, and
equal distribution of necessary goods e.g. medical treatment.

As you can already see from this sentence there are a number of notions linked together (which is
why justice/equality is such an interesting topic) — in the following I will just try and give you some
ideas you may want to explore ...

The notion of equality of human beings i.e. the factual statement that human beings are equal (as the
basis of the request that human beings should be treated equal). The problem with that, as Bernard
Williams has pointed out in 'The Idea of Equality', in: Problems of Self(1973), is that if you take it
literally it is too strong i.e. wrong because there are numerous counterexamples where human beings
are clearly not equal, e.g. our genetic make-up differs, we differ in talents, upbringing, social
circumstances, physical strength and health etc. On the other hand if you interpret the statement in
the weak sense it is too weak, because it is trivial to say that the only thing which is equal is the fact
that we are all human beings. Williams suggests that between these two extremes the factual
statement could be supported by the following considerations:

1. All human beings feel pain. Any society that discriminates certain groups using a criterion like
colour of the skin does so either arbitrarily (because the criterion is irrelevant) or simply acts wrongly
i.e. disregarding the capacity of these human beings for feeling pain. In fact according to Williams the
latter is the case, demonstrated by the fact that people/societies who act like that normally rationalise
the discrimination additionally i.e. they do not say that colour of skin is sufficient for different treatment
but they attribute some character deficiencies or lack of intelligence or other weakness to the group
they are discriminating against. This shows according to Williams that they in fact know and agree
that all human beings are equal and have therefore a claim to equal treatment.

2. All human beings have moral capacities: Kant has argued that all men deserve equal respect as
moral agents. Williams finds a problem with this as Kant in order to remove this claim from
contingencies (i.e. he does not want to allow the capacity for moral action to vary like other talents or
capacities vary between men) makes it a transcendental capacity; this results however in the problem
that there is a conflict between this vague notion of equal moral agents and the practice of holding
men responsible for their actions according to their capacities (e.g. taking into account mental illness,
moment of extreme anger etc.). Williams however finds that something is left of this notion in that we
can request for every man that his point of view is considered, what it means for him to live his life
(i.e. empathy, putting oneself in his shoes). One point Williams makes is that we should bear in mind
that society can influence our consciousness (i.e. extreme oppression can lead to the oppressed
adopting the same point of view, that they deserve such treatment. Therefore lack of suffering is in
itself no guarantee that the system is fair).

Considering the notion of equal opportunities in unequal circumstances: Equality is often discussed
regarding the distribution of (limited) goods: Williams argues that in cases of need such need should
be the sufficient and operative criterion for distribution. Example: Sick people have the need (illness)
and should therefore receive medical treatment (the good). The practice where money becomes a
major factor in the allocation of medical treatment (rich people receive better or earlier treatment, the
poor delayed, less good treatment or none at all) is according to Williams irrational. The situation
regarding goods that are allocated based on merit is somewhat different — they may be desired by
those that do not merit them or not desired by those who merit them: Example: University education.
In these cases there may be a mechanism to allocate the good e.g. certain grades to be reached at
the final exams qualify you to enter university. The problem with this is that the circumstances may
give certain groups an unfair advantage so that opportunities are equal only in name. Consider for
example that rich people can afford tuition, can send their children to better schools etc. In those
cases the question arises whether these underlying circumstances should be altered to provide truly
equal opportunities? Williams sees a problem regarding where to draw the line e.g. should one (if it
were possible) use brain surgery, genetic modification to erase differences that give advantage to
more talented/ intelligent children? Carried to the extreme the notion of equal opportunity collides
(and threatens to obliterate) the notion of personal identity and also the notion of equal respect
deserved despite existing differences.

Robert Nozick has criticised the idea of need giving a right to receive certain goods. He pointed out
that e.g. in the case of medical treatment the doctor providing the treatment has a legitimate right to
want to make a living out of his talent/skill, and that this is the important consideration in the
distribution of medical treatment. Nozick thinks society should not interfere with unequal situations
that have arisen as the result of legitimate actions. You can think for example of a situation where
some people chose to save their money, and pay for a better education of their children, the children
consequently get better jobs, they marry in the same social circle and due to good connections do
even better etc. The resulting inequality is the outcome of normal and legitimate actions. Nozick holds
that people are entitled to have and keep property that they have legitimately earned (notion of
entitlement).

It is noteworthy that often people argue for certain rights (which in fact both Williams and Nozick do in
this discussion) without explaining where these rights come from (are there natural moral laws and
rights or not?).

Consider also this: Is my need to eat a cake a sufficient reason for you to give me your cake or a
piece of it (Williams)? On the other hand is your having the cake legitimately a sufficient reason for
me not to take it from you if I want it (Nozick)? Is it not after all a question of power to take or to keep
the cake? And could one not argue that society is a finely-balanced system of power structures where
for example the need of the poor for medical treatment is met not just because of the need but
because all of us together have a mutual agreement where all pay tax so that such expenses can be
met should we ever need them etc. Obviously we feel differently about need for cancer treatment
than requests for luxury goods, so should society provide for basic needs of all? What are these basic
needs? And is it ultimately not a case of what a society can afford, and therefore a question of
wealth?

In a restricted sense of 'justice' consider justice in court — in democracies people are supposed to be
equal before the law, but the rich and famous can afford better counsel and can take their case if
required through numerous appeals, which is much more difficult for the poor. Education might also
play a role in whether you realise all the options you have to make your case. Again — existing
circumstances can give the advantage to certain groups as opposed to others.

Helene Dumitriu

95