“Equals must be treated equally, and unequals must be treated unequally.”
The above quote is Aristotle’s view on justice. It represents the principle of formal justice, that being the unspecified and unsubstantiated basic principle of justice. However there is a lot to be said for its simplicity. It lays a good groundwork for the original theories of justice. People who for whatever respects are considered equals must receive the same level of respect and in a medical sense treatment. It also allows for people who are not equals to be treat differently. Some would argue that this is grounds for the justification of discrimination. Which it could be, unless the terms are properly defined. It is stated in the Declaration of independence, one of the founding documents of the American government, that all men are created equal. Now this should clearly be expanded to include all women and everything in between, but it provides a definition of equality. The ideal of Justice as simply treating everyone equally sounds wonderful but is also kindergarten-ish in its simplicity and functionally impossible. The other option is to use some other definition of equality. And this is where the philosophy of this quote begins to seem barbaric. Say the equality was determined by intelligence, or success, or some other unequivocally good quality. There would always be people who did not possess such a quality merely because they were disadvantaged. This concept of being disadvantageous in the center point of the discussion of justice and equality. This is the idea that people are in fact perfectly equal but the circumstances of their life have the capability to render them unequal to others due to no fault of their own. This is perfectly true. There are certain external factors that can be very difficult or functionally impossible to overcome. This is being disadvantaged and in our ideals of equality society would bring these people up to whatever may be determined as a standard. This is sometimes referred to as the lottery of life. We attempt to help these people through genuine beneficence, sheer force of empathy, or the sense that if we had their place that we would want someone to help us. However Aristotle would not have this happen. They are not under most senses equals. My other major concern with the philosophy of this quote is the use of the word must. On first reading it seems Aristotle would view programs and actions taken in an attempt to equalize the disadvantaged as unjust. Despite the random and blameless nature of their condition he holds that they must be treated differently. However this could possibly be interpreted that due to their unequal nature they must be given better treatment as it is not specified that unequals of a lower sense must be treating unequally in a lesser sense. This can in fact be interpreted as everyone must be treated as such that the outcome is equal for them. Thus this quote which at first seems barbaric may in fact provide a truly beneficent foundation of justice.
While first reading Aristotle’s quote, I found it to be oddly ironic that he would argue for equality while also supporting unequal treatment. Upon reading your post however I can see the beauty in his quote. It is true that some people are just born with more, or unequal opportunities, and while there are times when that can be positive, there are also many instances where it can be negative. Aristotles quote then can be applied to the case of a child born to a very poor family. Through no fault of the child’s own, he most likely throughout his life will not be presented the same opportunities, as say many of us who are blessed enough to go to Emory. I feel that this child deserves unequal treatment in order to get equal oppportunities, and feel that opportunities such as scholarships would prove to be a well calculated solution to even the playing field. But what about the case of a child born to an average income family who does not qualify for a scholarship. The money that child would pay would still put his family in financial stress, so my question is where is the cutoff for unequal treatment, and who ultimately should have the power to decide?
I loved your interpretation of the quote as it gives the quote its balanced meaning. However, I also think that Aristotle referred to equality among people in relation to the situation they are engaged in. Though all people are different in their background, race, ethnicity, social status, mental abilities, financial status, education, culture, and many more factors that define human’s potential and beings, they are all born equal in dignity (Valasquez). According to the philosopher Immanuel Kant, in virtue of this dignity all people deserve to be treated as equals. Equality here refers to equality in reference to the situation; for example, two teachers working in the same school for the same number of hours, teaching the same subject, and having the same degree must be paid the same regardless of gender, race, background etc. This is justice according to Aristotle. “Equals must be treated equally” in reference to the situation they are involved in. In medical field, for example, justice is when patients who are members of the same medical insurance company, having the same plan, paying the same premium, and falling with the same age group must be treated equally. Others who are too poor to be members of any medical insurance company must obtain Medicaid and would not pay any premium like the others. Though the Medicaid patients won’t pay for their medical treatments and are treated differently from the members of any medical insurance plan, still they are considered to be treated justly in accordance to their financial capabilities, “unequal should be treated unequal”. Others who cannot afford to get medical insurance, and are not poor enough to get Medicaid, will be deprived to have the medical attention they need. We should not say here that there is no justice in comparison to the above groups of people but rather this situation is not right and should be approached accordingly. A solution must be found for this category of people. With Obama care, people with low income will have a very low premiums and won’t be denied health treatment. However, they should be members of Obama care.
The resources are limited; our health needs exceeds the limited resources; thus if we need to have justice we should efficiently allocate our resources and divide burdens and benefits equally in relation to people’s financial capabilities and in reference to the situation. We can’t treat all people the same…but still we will be treating people justly.
Works Cited
Valasquez, Manuel. “Justice and Fairness.” Santa Clara University. N.p., Aug. 2014. Web. 18 Apr. 2015.