Having applied this standard fairly and impartially, justice does not ask that we treat people equally in the end. On the contrary, it requires that we recognizes differences as manifested in people's actions and that we respond accordingly.

In evaluating an individual's actions, it may be appropriate to take into account the person's background. The disadvantages of an adverse early environment may lead us to esteem a person's achievements more highly. While such adversity does not excuse misdeeds, we may choose to judge them somewhat less harshly. On the other hand, justice does not (as some have suggested) require that we attempt to "redress" inequalities in natural ability. Such inequalities, like Crusoe's tiger, are a metaphysically given fact of nature, neither fair nor unfair. Indeed, to attempt to "remedy" such inequalities by penalizing persons of ability or granting special privileges to mediocrity would clearly violate the principle of justice, as defined above. Such a policy would no longer serve our objective values, but would subvert them.