{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023232323232323233, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.728323699421965, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Should Like Cases Be Decided Alike?: A Formal Analysis of Four Theories of Justice

The maxim 'treat like cases alike' has underpinned theories of justice since Aristotle. It is commonly wielded as a shield against arbitrary rule and as a sword for civil rights. But it is not clear what the maxim actually means. In this paper, we formalize and evaluate possible definitions of the maxim, including those of John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, HLA Hart, and Aristotle. We demonstrate that, as a theoretical principle, the maxim is always either unhelpful or pernicious. It provides no moral reason to make any particular decision. Importantly, we limit our inquiry to pure theory, and so there may still be room for using the maxim in practice. But such pragmatic use could only be justified with reference to other values, since the maxim contains no moral force of its own. Our findings should encourage political and legal theorists to reexamine some core assumptions of our normative theories.