Write an Individual Justice Argument

For your INDIVIDUAL ARGUMENT （Around 600-800 words）

Case Link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/uber-d…

You are to write a Justice argument in full sentences and paragraphs, that applies JUSTICE to one of the cases offered, and fully follows the JUSTICE theory outline below.

Write your argument in full sentences and no bullets or numbering.

OUTLINE FOR JUSTICE ARGUMENT.

RULE OF THUMB for step 4: When applying Justice, if possible, state differences, do not state equalities. There are logical problems with equalities (universal instantiation problem): when you say “all should” this could mean none should, so it is better to stress differences if you can.

Philosophy majors: this is one instance where the problem of universal instantiation really does matter. People say all should be treated the same as though this entails that some who should get treatment x actually exist and they never actually say they exist. What I mean is, they stress “all should be treated the same” and often actually say “either nobody gets x or everyone gets x” and never take the extra step to prove that all getting x is ethically better than none getting x.. Showing difference does not have this problem.

1.Define JUSTICE: Justice demands that we treat equals equally and unequals unequally. (just copy/paste the definition)

2. Give a general statement of the unfairness (or fairness) of the case. Best language to use:

X is being treated the same as Y

or

X is being treated differently from Y

3. Give some idea of who is doing the distribution of judgment in the case. (Be careful, a party being compared in the case cannot be the one doing the comparing.)

4. State whether equals should be treated equally or whether unequals should be treated unequally. Best language to use:

X should be treated the same as Y

or

X should be treated differently from Y

5. Give your criteria (can be more than one) for why equals should be treated equally or why unequals should be treated unequally.

6. Explain how your criteria fit.

7. COUNTERARGUMENT: Give an argument for the other side that people would likely or have proposed.

8. Explain why your comparison fits better, and why it is ethically better.