Thread by @NeilShenvi

I've been thinking about Lev. 19:15: “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor." How would we understand the sin of partiality under a collectivist view of justice? 1/

For example, if a man steals another man's property, on an individualistic view of justice, it seems that we would rightly judge the first man to be guilty of theft. 2/

On the other hand, if the item actually belonged to the 1st man, and he was merely reclaiming it, then the action would not be 'theft' at all. We would judge the first man to be innocent of theft. 3/

So context clearly matters to judging correctly, and I can see how this concept can be applied if we assume an individualistic perspective. But what if we apply a collectivist perspective of justice? 4/

If we set aside concepts of individual 'rights', 'property,' 'ownership', etc... how would we decide this case 'impartially'? For example, if we argue that 'the poor' as a group have been exploited by 'the rich' as a group such that justice demands redistribution of resources, 5/

then what does it mean to judge this particular case 'impartially'? The poor person, by virtue of being a poor person, is entitled to the property he "stole." But how is this not the sin of partiality? 6/

To put it another way, let's say a person looks at the case and says "the first man is a thief." If our response is: "well, that would be true if he were rich. But he's poor. Therefore, he is not a thief," then how is this *not* showing partiality? 7/

If we accept this reasoning, then what would the sin of 'partiality towards the poor' even mean? How could it be committed?

I don't have an answer, but I'm genuinely curious to know if anyone does. 8/8