Justice Vs. Fairness
Entry posted by Lazzy the Spazzy
323 views
Recent events in the RPG forum have brought to mind a debate about ethics that we've been having not just in my AP Lang class but also my Government class as well. I've decided to share my views on justice and fairness, and what I believe they are.
Women today, despite supposedly being on "equal ground" as men, still don't get the same wages as men do. I won't bother you with statistics. Some women's rights activists demand exactly equal treatment as men do, in not just jobs but all aspects of life. Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, Peter Singer, addressed this issue in one of his works (Animal Liberation, 1975), arguing that equal treatment was unreasonable when it came to women and men. He gave this as an example: "Women may want the right to abortion, but if we're going for everyone to have equal rights regardless of gender, shouldn't men have the right to abortion as well? But this is physically impossible, therefore no matter how we try to stretch laws toward gender equality, men and women will never have equal rights". Mr Singer goes on to qualify that it shouldn't be equal treatment that is the basis in determining fairness, but equal consideration.
Onto my main point. Justice and fairness have pretty much the same meanings today. People use them interchangeably. But the terms are different in my opinion -- the question is, how? What is the difference between justice and fairness?
If a student has a 4.0 GPA, participates in several extracurricular activities, and actively works for a cause he or she believes in, then the fact that this student gets in instead of another with, say, a 1.0 GPA and doesn't have any activities or causes, is just. Under the rules that the admissions staff has agreed to go by, and making an objective decision based on the information presented, their choice of the 4.0 student over the 1.0 student is an example of a just decision.
But they haven't considered the possibility that perhaps the second student has mediocre grades because his family is poor, and he has to work to support his single mother and his seven siblings. Perhaps he chose to put family before academics, and suffered as a result, as well as not having time for activities. Maybe he believes strongly in a cause but does not have the money or the ability to support it. Did the admissions officers consider the two students' different backgrounds? Did they make their decision considering the fact that the 4.0 student came from a rich family, had a good high school education, and had a community that supported her? Did they make their decision considering the fact that the 1.0 student lacked all these things? Is that fair?
No. The admissions officers' decision was just, but unfair.
Practicality aside (it's impossible, after all, to consider everything in a decision), I've just illustrated the difference between justice and fairness. Justice is equal treatment: everyone who breaks x law is given y punishment. Fairness is equal consideration: two people may not be treated the same, but the treatments are dealt out with equal consideration of their circumstances or identity.
Something that may be just may not always be fair, and something that may be fair may not always be just. Sometimes justice and fairness coincide, and when that happens that's cause for celebration. But most of the time they don't, and at times these two concepts may even oppose each other. This question of 'justice vs. fairness' can be the cause of many moral or ethical dilemmas, and people in charge may often run into such problems.
3 Comments
Recommended Comments