JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS
by
Bandal, Jacky A.
Machate, Hans Joshua R.
GE8: Ethics
Ramil T. Lanuza
Northwest Samar State University
October 21, 2022
I. INTRODUCTION
Justice is one of those fundamental concepts about which debate appears
limitless. Historically it has been a contested idea from the time of Aristotle.
Today, it continues to underlie many of the basic questions in political
philosophy, as well as a growing body of empirical research in the areas of public
policy (Elster 1992) and group decision making (Frolich & Oppenheimer 1992).
A variety of question about justice take many forms. First, we can ask
about the nature of individual acts, like “What does justice require me to do in this
case?”. Second, we can ask about the distribution of things, example “What is a
just distribution of these goods, or rights, or liberties?”. Third, we can ask about
the nature of justice, “does it applies to all?” and “Do anyone experience justness
and fairness?”. In each instance we justify our answer in terms of conception of
justice by different theories. The question is, who are the people behind these
concepts and theories of justice?
Around the Philippines, there are many calls for social justice, especially
while Enhanced Community Quarantine is being implemented during the
unfortunate and trying times of COVID-19. Nobody can deny that everyone's life
is at danger because of the COVID-19 pandemic. But some upper-class and
middle-class people are able to get by without much difficulty and occasionally
get away with breaking the law. Their connections allow them to throw parties,
disregard protocols, and override rules. There is always someone to call in case
of trouble. Sadly, it appears that the remaining social class is confined behind a
set of walls as they wait for their rations. They lack the connections necessary to
escape the pull that such diversity has over them. Others are left grasping for
virtually nothing, while some have the means and capacity to carry on living
despite the pandemic.
Aside from that, we know that food comes from the farms, but the dining
tables of the farmers fall short of it. They are described as the “unsung heroes”
and the “backbone of the country, yet they wallow inside the vicious cycle of
poverty. As for our fisherfolk, they are the ones catching fish, yet their children
are hungry as malnutrition is highest in the coastal communities. How about our
indigenous people? Well, they have become “squatters” in their own native land
which their forefathers had occupied for hundreds of years and now converted
into massive plantation.
This research will discuss what makes up justice and what makes things
fair. It is high time that we start looking at the issue of distributive justice,
studying what it means and how it should be and who shouldn't be treated
unjustly either in order for us to live a better life. We will surely be able to
generally sharpen our general thinking processes and deepen our reflection on
the ultimate questions of our life.
II. JUSTNESS AND FAIRNESS
1. Concept of Justice
Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law,
natural law, religion or equity.
According to most contemporary theories of justice, justice is
overwhelmingly important - "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as
truth is of systems of thought."
Each culture's ethics create values which influence the notion of
justice. Although there are some justice principles that are the same in all or
most of the cultures, these are insufficient to create a unitary justice
apprehension.
The association of justice with fairness has been historically and
culturally rare and is perhaps a modern innovation.
2. Categories of Justice/ Kinds of Justice
1. Distributive Justice - refers to the extent to which society’s
institutions ensure that benefits and burdens are distributed among
society’s members in ways that are fair and just. When the institutions
of a society distribution benefits or burdens in unjust ways, there is a
strong presumption that those institutions should be changed. Issues
of distributive justice concern the fairness of the distribution of
something among several people or groups.
Example: A number of disqualified beneficiaries of the Social
Amelioration Program (SAP) receive such benefits because of their
close ties with the Barangay officials.
2. Retributive Justice – refers to the extent to which punishments
are fair and just. In general punishments are held to be just to the
extent that they consider relevant criteria such as the seriousness of
the crime and the intent of the criminal, and discount irrelevant criteria
such as race.
Example: For instance, it would be horribly unjust to chop off a
person's hand for robbing a cent or to put someone to death for injuring
someone accidentally and without malice.
3. Compensatory Justice - refers to the extent to which punishments
are fairly compensated for their injuries by those who have injured
them; just compensation is proportional to the loss inflicted on a
person. It concerns the fairness when restoring to a person what the
person lost when he or she wronged by someone else.
Example: The kind of justice at issue in discussions on coal mine
worker health harm. Some believes that mine owners should make
compensate for the workers' damaged health. Others claim that by
choosing to work in the mines, employees voluntarily accepted this
risk.
The foundations of justice can be traced to the notions of social
stability, interdependence, and equal dignity. Ethicist John Rawls
pointed out that the stability of a society or any group, depends upon
the extent to which the members of that society feel that they are being
treated justly. For instance, if one of the members starts to feel unfairly
treated, the foundation of social unrest, upheavals, and strife have
been sown. According to Rawls, society's members depend on one
another and will only maintain their social cohesiveness to the extent
that their institutions are just. In addition, as the philosopher Immanuel
Kant and others have noted, all people are equal in this regard
because they all share the same sense of dignity and should be
treated as such as a result. Every time people are treated unjustly
based on arbitrary and irrelevant attributes; their basic human dignity is
violated.
Therefore, justice is a necessary part of ethics and should be given
proper consideration in our moral life. We must consider if our activities
treat everyone equitably while making any moral judgement. If not, we
must decide whether the disparity in treatment is reasonable: are the
criteria we are utilizing relevant to the current circumstance? But
justice is not the sole factor to consider when making ethical decisions.
Other moral claims, such as those relating to rights or the benefit of
society, may need to show dominance over the principles of justice at
times. Nevertheless, justice is an expression of our shared respect for
each other's fundamental dignity and an understanding that we must
treat one another equally if we are to coexist as a community that is
dependent on one another.
3. Theories of Distributive Justice
A just and fair society meets everyone's needs for equality, fairness, and
an equitable distribution of goods, wealth, and services to ensure the smooth
running of the community. Distributive justice is the branch of moral
philosophy that examines fair distribution. Since it deals with equal access to
resources as well as equal rights and opportunities, it is also a form of social
justice. According to Aristotle, distributive justice implies that the state
should divide or distribute goods and wealth among citizens according
to merit.
Affirmative action concerns like hiring and promotion in government
positions, admission to public educational institutions, seats in the legislature,
welfare, free education, and other goods and opportunities that are distributed
among the society's members are all included in the concept of distributive
justice.
Distributive Justice is absent when:
Equal work does not produce equal outcome.
An individual or group acquires a disproportionate amount of
goods.
Thus, distributive justice challenges are less likely to occur when there are
enough resources, opportunities, and status for everyone in the society. The
practical application of distributive justice theory is to offer moral direction for
the distribution of resources, the distribution of costs and rewards in society,
as well as the political institutions and procedures that influence the allocation
and distribution.
Principles of Distributive Justice
There are various principles of distributive justice. They vary according to
the perspectives of the thinker. Equality, Equity and Need are among the
most common criteria.
1. Equality
One of the simplest principles of distributive justice is equality. It states
that irrespective of their contributions, all members of the society
should be given an equal share of the rewards. Allocation of the
resources should be absolutely equal.
Equality affects two areas of distributive justice: opportunities and
outcomes.
Equality of opportunity is found when all members of a society are
allowed to participate in acquiring goods. No one is blocked from
acquiring more goods. Acquiring more goods would be a sole function
of will, not because of any social or political reason.
Equality of outcome is more relative. It does not guarantee that all
members of a society will receive the same number of goods. It does
guarantee that equal work will produce an equal amount of goods.
A good way to think about equality is that it establishes an equal floor
more than an equal ceiling. Everyone needs a certain number of goods
to survive. Equality ensures that every member of society has a basic
number of goods regardless of how much work they have done. If this
floor is established and there are no limits to the ability of one to
acquire goods except for his or her own will, then distributive justice
can be said to be present.
2. Equity
Equity is related to equality but takes the idea a step further. If
everyone is given the same job opportunities, then that is an example
of equality. But what about those whose physical limitations would
make it exceptionally difficult for them to complete a task? This kind of
factor are considered in a society that values equity, including in areas
like the labor market. People with disabilities are entitled to
accommodations that grant them not just equal but equitable access.
Same with the equitable distribution of goods. In theory, people who
work harder in more valuable jobs should earn more goods. In simple
words, individuals with equal contributions should be treated equally
and unequal should be treated unequally.
3. Need
Need-based principle of distributive justice states that everyone should
not get the same share because everyone’s needs are not the same.
Not all people need the same things from a society, and some people
need more than others. Those in greatest need should be provided
with the resources to meet those needs. For example, some people
need childcare services while others do not; some people need special
education because of disabilities or specialized training for particular
jobs. Providing equal and equitable access to goods and services is
important, but it is also important to address specific needs.
Theories of distributive justice specify the meaning of just distribution
of goods and fair share of resources among members of society. The
main theories behind distributive justice are as follows:
Rawls’ Theory of Distributive Justice
The American political philosopher John Rawls presented the
simplest approach in his works A Theory of Justice and Political
Liberalism in the 20th century with relation to notions of distributive
justice. His view of distributive justice is among the most well-known in
modern times. These are the fundamental precepts of his theory:
1. Justice as Fairness
In his book “A Theory of Justice”, John Rawls introduced a concept of
justice as fairness. He believed that utilitarianism, which advocates
"the greatest quantity of happiness for the greatest number of people,"
could not be the source of an appropriate level of justice. The doctrine
of justice as fairness is consist of two main principles:
a. Each person has an equal claim to equal basic rights and
liberties including equal political liberties, which is compatible
with for all. Only those liberties which are compatible for all are
to be guaranteed their fair value.
b. Social and economic inequalities should satisfy two conditions
of fair equality of opportunity and the greatest benefit of the
least advantaged members of society.
2. Egalitarian Distributive Justice
As egalitarian, one is concerned with a just distribution in terms of
receiving an equal share. It means that everyone should be treated the
same “To all the same”
This theory of distributive justice also encompasses both simple
equity and equality.
There are two kinds of distributive justice under egalitarianism on
the level of state or governmental distributions.
a. Political Egalitarianism where legal rights of every citizen
are equally observed. For instance, in the exercise of the
right to suffrage, it is not only intended for the few citizens.
Every citizen of the country should have the right to choose
who is his/her political candidate should be given the powers
to govern them.
b. Economic Egalitarianism where the distribution of
socioeconomic goods is equally observed. The
socioeconomic goods refer to those basic necessities –
primarily food, clothing, and shelter- that would enable each
citizen to have and live a decent life. Another example of
equal treatment of all citizens from economic egalitarianism
is the establishment of the “minimum wage law.” Every
employee is entitled to a just wage in terms of the lowest
possible wage they can receive from doing legal work
according to the law as agreed upon by the government and
the private employers.
3. Meritocratic or Capitalist Distributive Justice
As capitalist, one is concerned with a just distribution in terms of
receiving one’s share according to how much the contributes to the
over-all success of the goals of the institution where one is employed.
It is “To each according to their merit.”
The term proportion is useful here. One receives one’s share
according to the proportion of one’s contribution. If one contributes
more, one receives more. If one contributes less, the less one
receives. There is a working student who shares his experience being
a library staff during his vacant time. He receives his salary/allowance
according to the number of hours rendered, and for every hour, he is
paid ₱20. If he decides to be on duty for four hours, he receives ₱80; if
six hours, ₱120; if two hours, ₱40. That is an example of distributive
justice according to mindset of the capitalists.
4. Socialist Distributive Justice
As socialist, one is concerned with a just distribution in terms of
one’s needs. It is referred as “From each according to their ability, to
each according to their need.”
We have various needs in life, and if we want to achieve those
needs, we need to work hard according to the amount of needs we
have. If one has greater needs, then one expects that his share is
greater in the distribution scheme, vice versa. This view of distributive
justice would seek to level the playing field of every member of the
society where all of them have natural inequalities. These inequalities
refer to those inequalities in our initial endowments in life. One has the
natural talent of singing those others do not have. One has the genes
of being intelligent that others do not have. One is born into an affluent
family, who owns a big hacienda in the province, and so you can have
all latest gadgets, the best school to choose to study and many others
you need to make all your wishes and desires happen in just one
request.
Consequently, from the natural inequalities, the disadvantage
cannot really compete with those advantaged. In order to get that kind
of share, the socialist justice would emphasize the kind of work that is
based on one’s natural talents. If one has the talent of singing, one has
to be employed as singer; if one has the talent for public relation, one
has to be a PRO in office. According to this mindset is part of the idea
“from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” of
Karl Marx. No alienation and dehumanization will take place. If one
wants to receive according to the proportion of one’s needs, one has to
get the proceeds by utilizing in full use of one’s talents. This setup
corrects the natural inequalities.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
The lesson and topics we discussed taught us so much about our connection to
ourselves, to our friends and to the community that surrounds us. Rawls' Theory of
Justice continues to serve its purpose to this day. It satisfies his concept that we should
strive for in a pluralistic and liberal society since the Philippines is a democratic country,
we all have the right to choose a leader who we trust and believe our future.
Based on this research Justice has four categories, Distributive, Procedural,
Retributive and Restorative. Each of this is widely practice on today's society.
Distributive Justice is determining who gets what, example of this is the senior citizens,
to have a monthly pension after they served the country for decades. The manager
treating his or her employees fairly and giving them allowance equally is an example of
Procedural Justice. Retributive Justice is giving a criminal a verdict that is suitable for its
crime. And contemplating for his or her sins is an example of Restorative Justice
Therefore, Justice implies equality, responsibility and provided a benefit to the
people who earned it. Justice is a two-way street, the law will give you everything you
need, and the law will take it away if you break it like committing a crime or harm others.
Justness and Fairness is a lot more than we think. It is not only making sure that
everyone is treated the same. It encourages, respect, responsibility, leadership, trust
and a life that matters. All of these things affect a community. Imagine our community if
there was no such thing as fairness or rules. No one would agree, people would get
upset with each other, people wouldn’t work together and people wouldn’t want to live
there. In a community where people are being treated fair everyone works together,
solves problems easily, has fun, cares for one another, feels safe and gets along. That
is a way that many people want to live.
On the other hand, the ideas, concept and theories that comprises the
Existentialism or existential ethics awakes us all. Existentialism breathes new life into
old ideas about the nature of value, freedom, and even more broadly into questions
about the nature of reality and knowledge. On this recommendation, we will restrict our
focus to what existentialists have to say about human nature and living a meaningful
life. In order for us to understand what sort of beings we are, we must understand that
who we are is not a fact we we’re born with, nor is it a fact that was established merely
after some important events in our lives unfolded. We are what we are because of what
we choose, and one can never stop us from choosing. For even by trying to decide that
we will no longer make choices, we are making the choice not to choose. Jean-Paul
Sartre, the most famous of the historical existentialists, expresses the idea that we are
who we make ourselves, and not who we are pre-determined to be, with a concise
slogan: “existence precedes essence.” Existentialism gives us some tools for
understanding our essence, and how it is possible to live a meaningful life. The ideas
defended by existentialists have been thought to have both positive and negative
implications for us. On the one hand, our lives are not determined by God, society, or
contingent circumstances; on the other hand, absolute freedom can be a burden. As
Sartre puts it, “man is condemned to be free.” That is, it was never up to us to be free,
and we cannot cease to be free. Since we must be free, and because freedom entails
responsibility, we can never opt out of being responsible. Thus we are simultaneously
unencumbered and encumbered by our freedom to choose who we will be.
With that we should at the very least, try our utmost to pursue what will give
some meaning to our lives, and bestow upon us the elusive notion of happiness. We
should all assume we have just one chance at life, because nobody has the answers for
you, everybody on earth is just as clueless as you are. So, spend your life doing
something that distracts you from the essential hollowness of our existence.
We our continuous goal of gaining more knowledge about the topics and
concepts about ethics, we encouraged everyone to aspire for more deeper knowledge
and be able to read and study the concepts we discussed previously because this
concepts won’t only help us academically but it well help us improve our lives as
meaningful human beings.
IV. REFERENCES
"Existential Ethics." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 25, 2021 from
Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-
almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/existential-ethics
Wikipedia contributors. (2021, October 18). Subjectivity. Wikipedia. Retrieved
November 5, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
Miller, David, "Justice", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/justice/
Wenar, Leif, "John Rawls", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/rawls/>.
Crowell, Steven, "Existentialism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer
2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/existentialism/>.
C. S. Wyatt, [email protected]. (2020). Existential Primer: Ethics. (C) 2020 C. S.
Wyatt. Retrieved November 4, 2021, from
https://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/ex_ethics.html
Messerly, J. (2020, January 22). Summary of Sartre’s Ethics. Reason and Meaning.
Retrieved November 6, 2021, from https://reasonandmeaning.com/2017/11/15/ethics-
existentialism/
Rosenthal, S. B. (2019, January 8). situation ethics. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/situation-ethics
Boas, R. (2017, June 30). Situation ethics: Joseph Fletcher’s four examples. Ppt Video
Online Download. Retrieved November 3, 2021, from
https://slideplayer.com/slide/2434954/
Velsquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., S.J., Meyer, M. (2014, August 1). Justice and
Fairness. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-
resources/ethical-decision-making/justice-and-fairness
Hamedi A. (2014, December 10) The Concept of Justice In Greek Philosophy (Plato
and Aristotle) | Hamedi | Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences.
https://www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/view/5193/5010
Wilson, C. (2009, August 7). Darwinian Morality. Evolution: Education and Outreach.
Retrieved November 6, 2021, from https://evolution-
outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0162-z
Rawls, J., (2006). A theory of justice. In White, J.E. (ed.) Contemporary moral problems
(pp. 60-66). Belmont CA., Thomas Wadworth.
Rawls, J. (2005). Political liberalism, New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Maiese, Michelle. "Principles of Justice and Fairness." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy
Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of
Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2003
<http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/principles-of-justice>.
Railton, Peter. Analytic ethics, 1998, doi:10.4324/9780415249126-L003-1. Routledge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Taylor and Francis,
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/analytic-ethics/v-1
Kelly, M. (1989). The Dialectical/Dialogical Structure of Ethical Reflection. Philosophy &
Rhetoric, 22(3), 174–193. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40237589
Selznick, P. (1987). The Idea of a Communitarian Morality. California Law Review, 75(1),
445–463. https://doi.org/10.2307/3480588
N. M. L. Nathan. (1971) The Concept of Justice.
Pomerleau, W. P. (n.d.). Justice, Western Theories of | Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved November 3, 2021,
from https://iep.utm.edu/justwest/
Schroeder, D. (n.d.). Evolutionary Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Retrieved November 3, 2021, from https://iep.utm.edu/evol-eth/
Bellomy DC. Social Darwinism revisited. Perspectives in American History. 1984;1:1–
129.
Young, E. C. (n.d.). Chapter 1 The Foundation of Ethical Thought. Ppt Download. Retrieved
November 6, 2021, from https://slideplayer.com/slide/13140161/
Musset, S. (n.d.). Beauvoir, Simone de | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Peer
Reviewed Academic Source. https://iep.utm.edu/beauvoir/
WPSU - Penn State Public Media. (n.d.). Ethical Orientations: Communitarianism. The
Arthur W. Page Center: For Integrity in Public Communication. Retrieved
November 6, 2021, from https://www.pagecentertraining.psu.edu/public-relations-
ethics/ethical-decision-making/yet-another-test-page/ethical-orientations-
communitarianism/
Pomerleau, W. Justice, Western Theories of | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://iep.utm.edu/justwest/#H1
