Unlike my ancient predecessor, this Tullius hasn't had his hands chopped off. With hands attached I offer my thoughts on philosophy, religion, politics, and whatever else I find worth mentioning. I'm conservative religiously and politically (with libertarian leanings). I value reason and freedom but also traditions and "Oldthink." I relish being on the wrong side of history when history is wrong--part of a philosopher's job is to be unpopular. (Views given here may not represent my employers')
Saturday, August 9, 2014
"Equality doesn't mean Justice": An Analysis of a Picture Going Viral
Have a look at this picture that has been circulating of which I do not know the origin. What do you see? What is this picture trying to convey? What does it mean?
Having no knowledge of the origin, I offer my own interpretation in narrative form which I take to be a reasonable one (but perhaps not the only reasonable one):
"Some people enter the world with the short end of the stick. Some people need help in order to make it. As such, equal treatment isn't just (for instance, a flat tax isn't just). What is just is redistributing wealth such that everyone gets their fair share."
End narration. Now let's look back up at this picture. What does the left side show? Well, each kid has the same number of boxes: one. It also shows that poor "Shorty" can't see over the fence. What it doesn't show is who owned the boxes, whether any or all of the kids had a right to the boxes, and whether anyone had a duty such that each kid had one box.
Look now to the right, allegedly the side of justice. Is it an example of justice? We have no way of knowing! Are the two kids (or midgets) on the right packing heat, and did they threaten to shoot someone to get the boxes? Did they steal the boxes? Did they illegally cross the border and take a job from a cute, legal-Mexican-American-Jew-bisexual-junior high-girl-interning at ESPN to get those boxes? Did they lie to the big doofus on the left or promise him candy for his boxes knowing full well that they would never buy him any? Absent such knowledge we have no way of knowing if the situation on the right is a just one. This is because we do not know whether anyone rendered or was being rendered what was his due. Unless you are a leftard who thinks that every child has a natural right to watch baseball and hence there is a corresponding duty to provide all children access to baseball games, you should think that there is not enough information on the right to know whether the situation is a just one.
The terrible irony of this picture (if my interpretation is correct) is that it is actually the picture on the RIGHT which assumes that 'equality means justice.' According to this picture, it makes no difference whether the boxes were JUSTLY distributed or how they were acquired, what matters is that EVERYONE GETS TO SEE THE GAME.
Or maybe I'm terribly wrong. Maybe the picture is an argument for affirmative action for the short.
Labels:
inequality,
justice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment