How should we respond to Ima Robber, who says "It's all right for me to steal from you, but wrong for you to steal from me -- because I have six toes and you don't"?
How should we respond to Ima Robber, who says "It's all right for me to steal from you, but wrong for you to steal from me -- because I have six toes and you don't"?
This is obvious to me and to you. But how do we make it obvious to Ima?
How should we respond to Ima Robber, who says "It's all right for me to steal from you, but wrong for you to steal from me -- because I have six toes and you don't"?
We can test Ima's consistency by seeing whether he regards the property as morally relevant regardless of which side is imagined to have it.
It isn't easy to invent relevant differences. We can only appeal to factors that we're aware of. And we must be factually accurate (that the factor applies in one case but not the other) and logically consistent (giving the factor equal weight regardless of which side is imagined to have it).