I don’t know how to handle this Philosophy question and need guidance.
For your INDIVIDUAL 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, better to stress differences if you can.
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
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
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.