Let's say there are two guys. One needs to eat 2.5 kg of food per day.
Another guy needs 1 kg food only.
Now, let's consider a law which dictates absolute equality. And it implies--both of them will either be provided with 2.5 kg food or 1 kg food. What will happen? For the former case the second guy will have excess--and probably either the food will be wasted or the second guy will have the privilege to use it for the future--while the first guy won't have that privilege. For the later case, the first guy will starve.
2006-08-13 12:58:41 · 7 answers · asked by Mahfuz R 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
The French liberals before the Revolution thought about it hard and long. They arrived to a simple conclusion: liberté and egalité are only possible if there is fraternité.
That's why the motto of the Revolution in 1789 was "liberty, equality, fraternity."
I equal liberty with justice. In your example, if there were fraternity, both guys would agree on how to better use the food.
2006-08-13 13:06:46 · answer #1 · answered by tlakkamond 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They should be-- but it's a long shot. Now when they say we are all created equal, it does not mean that we all look alike, act alike, have equal amount of necessities, and born of alike families. I think it simply says that we are born all naked and are all entitled to a fresh new start. what you do with your life is up to you and you must face the consequences of your actions. As for justice, it should be fair, not in giving men the same amount of food but in recognizing how much amount of food should be given to each person according to his needs (this is just an illustration) same thing as punishing a theft and a murderer, justice is not sentencing both these criminals to death but by evaluating the degree of the offense and giving the just amount of punishment.
2006-08-13 22:23:07 · answer #2 · answered by malko 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As I get it, you are also referring somewhat to the liberalism vs. democracy dilemma... I must say that, between these two, i am a partisan of the liberalism (that means that i am closer to the conservative thinking, in the line of Edmund Burke) "against" the democracy... Or, if you want it said otherwise, I feel much more related to the schoole of Alexis de Toqueville, Madame de Stael and Edouard Laboulaye with the detour of Giovanni Sartori (mainly A Theory of Democracy Revisited), deninig the rousseuism of the equality and its anarchic form of libertarianism in favour of the concept of justice. I found an interesting thought of Dante in Divina Commedi, where, in Paradisio, in direct connection with his political thought, he states something like "Diligite Justitiam qui iudicatis terram", i.e. you, who rule the world, love the justice...
2006-08-13 20:48:19 · answer #3 · answered by Radu 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Justice chooses sides. It's never a win win situation. It defines right and wrong. While it might not always choose the correct side in the argument it will make decide one way or the other. It would be unreasonable to expect a just judgement to be equal to both parties.
2006-08-13 20:32:58 · answer #4 · answered by rogue chedder 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Equality is fundamental to justice, but that doesn't mean justice is simple equality.
Justice is equality, all relevant things being equal - but all relevant things are not always equal.
Certainly, if one person *needs* unequal treatment, then unequal treatment is just. If someone is going to starve if they don't get a more than strictly equal amount of food, then it is justice that they get more - but no more than they need.
Further, if a person *deserves* unequal treatment, then again unequal treatment is just. We don't put everyone in jail, only those we judge to deserve being put in jail.
2006-08-13 21:19:44 · answer #5 · answered by brucebirdfield 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because justice isn't fair.
2006-08-13 20:05:05 · answer #6 · answered by Said 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
only with reason
2006-08-13 20:12:39 · answer #7 · answered by cudoit c 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋