BIG PICTURE in Focus

WE WILL NOW analyze the various concepts revolving the ideas of JUSTICE AND
FAIRNESS, and provide moral principles of justice for one's daily life and judgment

◈ METALANGUAGE ◈

JUSTICE – giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving
each person his or her due

FAIRNESS – used to refer to the ability to make judgments that are not overly general but that
are concrete and specific to a particular case

NEUTRALITY – involves impartial, even handed treatment and would be exemplified in the
family context by parents who use impartial procedures with all members of the family

TRUST – refers to whether individuals have faith in the good intentions of others, typically
authority figures

STANDING – refers to whether an authority figure treats a person as a valued member of a

relevant group, for instance, parents who treat their child as a valued member of the family.

Intuitionism – the doctrine that justice must be determined in particular situations by balancing
a plurality of first principles without any priority rules for ordering them

… is held to be defective because the way in which we weigh conflicting intuitions may be
biased by our own particular situations and expectations

PERFECTIONISM – a theory ordaining that society be ordered so as to maximize the

achievement of human excellence in art, science, and culture

Civic – of, relating to, or belonging to a city, a citizen, or citizenship, municipal or civil society.

Responsibility – refers to the state or quality of being responsible or something for which one is
responsible such as a duty, obligation or burden.

Citizen – a person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a
state or union

Citizenship – a productive, responsible, caring and contributing member of society

◈ ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE ◈
 JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS

The study of justice has been a topic in ethics and philosophy at least since Plato and Socrates,
and philosophical and ethical thinking about justice has shaped the way people see the world.
Mankind has long tried to answer the question, “what is justice?” Yet the question seems to
remain as open ever, and it seems unsure if a final answer can ever be found. Justice has been
conceptualized in many different ways by philosophers and thinkers: as a natural law based on
contracts, as an instrument for societal order for which no universal standard exists, as a
consequence of the economic system that is used as a manipulative instrument to preserve and
justify a societal order, or as a result of historical associations and historical rights (Fellenz &
Fortin, 2007).

Justice has been thought about as an attribute of societal order, as a human virtue, or as an
attribute of an act.
Arguments about justice or fairness have a long tradition in Western civilization.

In fact, no idea in Western civilization has been more consistently linked to ethics and morality
than the idea of justice.

But saying that justice is giving each person what he or she deserves does not take us very far.

Definitions and Concepts

JUSTICE means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms,
giving each person his or her due.

JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS are closely related terms that are often today used interchangeably.
There have, however, also been more distinct understandings of the two terms.

While JUSTICE usually has been used with REFERENCE TO A STANDARD OF

RIGHTNESS, FAIRNESS often has been used with regard to an ABILITY TO JUDGE
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ONE'S FEELINGS OR INTERESTS;

fairness has also been used to refer to the ability to make judgments that are not overly general
but that are concrete and specific to a particular case.

In any case, A NOTION OF BEING TREATED AS ONE DESERVES is crucial to both

justice and fairness.

When people differ over what they believe should be given, or when decisions have to be made
about how BENEFITS AND BURDENS SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED among a group of
people, questions of justice or fairness inevitably arise.

In fact, most ethicists today hold the view that there would be no point of talking about justice or
fairness if it were not for the conflicts of interest that are created when goods and services are
scarce and people differ over who should get what.
When such conflicts arise in our society, we need principles of justice that we can all accept as
reasonable and fair standards for determining what people deserve.

Tom Tyler has conceptualized PROCEDURAL JUSTICE in terms of the

relationships among decision makers and participants in the decision-making process.

For example, he suggested that people EVALUATE THE PROCEDURAL

FAIRNESS of interactions with others along relational dimensions such as
NEUTRALITY, TRUST, AND STANDING.

NEUTRALITY involves impartial, even handed treatment and would be exemplified in the
family context by parents who use IMPARTIAL PROCEDURES WITH ALL
MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY.

TRUST refers to whether individuals have faith in the good intentions of

others, typically authority figures.

STANDING refers to whether an authority figure treats a person as a valued

member of a relevant group, for instance, parents who treat their child as a
valued member of the family. (What about candidates?)

This identity-based, relational model proposed by Tyler and his associates is based on a
substantial foundation of empirical research demonstrating that PEOPLE SEEM TO CARE
ABOUT RELATIONAL ISSUES such as BEING TREATED WITH DIGNITY AND
RESPECT AND HAVING THEIR POSITION HEARD whether or not their expressions
have any influence on decision outcomes (Lind & Tyler 1988).

Fairness is under the term justice. In order to conclude that there is justice; one should first
perceive and become aware if there is equity or fairness happening.

The idea of fairness is more on individual’s COMPARISON OF THE RECEIVED BENEFITS

TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF OTHERS in a particular group.

While, justice develops when common good exist in wider population or in the society. The
theory of justice as fairness denies that individuals should receive a greater or lesser share of
basic rights and duties because of their personal achievements or because of their personal
contributions to society. So justice might be fulfilled by social equality.
PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE

The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely accepted since it was
first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago—is the principle that
"EQUALS SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY AND UNEQUALS UNEQUALLY."

In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows:

"INDIVIDUALS SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME, UNLESS THEY DIFFER IN
WAYS THAT ARE RELEVANT TO THE SITUATION IN WHICH THEY ARE
INVOLVED."

For example, if Jack and Jill both do the SAME WORK, AND THERE ARE NO RELEVANT
DIFFERENCES between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the
same wages.

And if Jack is paid more than Jill simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we
have an INJUSTICE—a form of DISCRIMINATION—because race and sex are not relevant to
normal work situations.

There are, however, many differences that we deem as JUSTIFIABLE CRITERIA for treating
people differently.

For example, we think it is fair and just when a parent gives his own children more attention and
care in his private affairs than he gives the children of others;

we think it is fair when the person who is first in a line at a theater is given first choice of theater
tickets;

For example, we think it is just when the government gives benefits to the needy that it does not
provide to more affluent citizens;

we think it is just when some who have done wrong are given punishments that are not meted out
to others who have done nothing wrong;

and we think it is fair when those who exert more efforts or who make a greater contribution to a
project receive more benefits from the project than others.

These criteria—need, desert, contribution, and effort—we acknowledge as JUSTIFYING

DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT, then, are numerous.

On the other hand, there are also criteria that we believe are not justifiable grounds for giving
people different a treatment.

In the world of work, for example, we generally hold that it is unjust to give individuals special
treatment on the basis of age, sex, race, or their religious preferences.
If the judge's nephew receives a suspended sentence for armed robbery when another offender
unrelated to the judge goes to jail for the same crime, or the brother of the Director of Public
Works gets the million dollar contract to install sprinklers on the municipal golf course despite
lower bids from other contractors, we say that it's unfair. We also believe it isn't fair when a
person is punished for something over which he or she had no control, or isn't compensated for a
harm he or she suffered. 

QUESTION: Please give a current social issue (locally or abroad) which shows INJUSTICE and
UNFAIRNESS. Please describe why it is unjust/unfair?

JOHN RAWLS' THEORY OF JUSTICE

Harvard philosophy professor John Rawls (1921–2002), has been widely hailed ever since its
1971 publication as a classic of liberal political philosophy — earning its author such praise as
being called the most important political philosopher of the twentieth century, and receiving the
National Humanities Medal in 1999. In presenting the award, President Clinton acclaimed Rawls
for having helped a whole generation of learned Americans revive their faith in democracy itself.

Rawls expresses from the outset of THEORY is to devise a theory of justice that can better
SYSTEMATIZE PEOPLE’S JUDGMENTS ABOUT IT. In his view, existing political societies
are seldom well-ordered simply because they are characterized by DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT
JUSTICE. An AGREED-ON THEORY OF JUSTICE is needed, in addition, in order for
individuals’ life plans to be fitted together so that nobody’s legitimate expectations will be
severely disappointed.

He claims to have provided a solution to these problems in the form of two principles of justice,
the first enjoys priority over the second.

The first principle MANDATES THAT EVERYONE HAS AN EQUAL RIGHT TO THE
MOST EXTENSIVE SYSTEM OF EQUAL BASIC LIBERTIES COMPATIBLE WITH A
SIMILAR SYSTEM OF LIBERTY FOR ALL.

The second dictates that INEQUALITIES IN SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC GOODS MUST BE
ARRANGED TO THE GREATEST BENEFIT OF THE LEAST ADVANTAGED MEMBERS
OF SOCIETY (THE DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE), WHILE BEING ATTACHED TO OFFICES
AND POSITIONS OPEN TO ALL UNDER CONDITIONS OF FAIR EQUALITY OF
OPPORTUNITY.

RAWLS SACKS TWO OTHER RIVAL THEORIES EVEN MORE BRIEFLY THE
INTUITIONISM AND THE PERFECTIONISM.

Intuitionism, defined as the doctrine that justice must be determined in particular situations by
balancing a plurality of first principles without any priority rules” for ordering them is held to be
defective because the way in which we weigh conflicting intuitions may be biased by our own
particular situations and expectations.
This view has two implications: (1) that there are a plurality of first principles which may
conflict to give contrary directives in particular types of cases, and (2) that there is no explicit
method, no priority rules, for weighing these principles against one another: WE ARE SIMPLY
TO STRIKE A BALANCE BY INTUITION, BY WHAT SEEMS TO US MOST NEARLY
RIGHT.
https://politicalnotmetaphysical.wordpress.com/tag/intuitionism/

INTUITION MEANS an ability to understand or know something without needing to think

about it or use reason to discover it, or a feeling that shows this ability. It is therefore unreliable.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/intuition

While it is not necessarily irrational to appeal to intuition to settle questions of priority, Rawls
urges that we do what we can to reduce the direct appeal to our considered judgments in order to
make agreement among us more likely — as, he maintains, his two principles (including the
priority rule) do.

PERFECTIONISM, A THEORY ORDAINING THAT SOCIETY BE ORDERED SO AS TO

MAXIMIZE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF HUMAN EXCELLENCE IN ART, SCIENCE, AND
CULTURE,

which he associates with Nietzsche, on the ground that the veil of ignorance, which deprives the
parties to the original position of knowledge of their conceptions of the good (other than the
desire to maximize their share of primary goods) would prevent the parties to the original
position from having “an agreed conception of perfection that can be used” to choose among
institutions on that basis. WHILE DENYING HOLDING THAT “THE CRITERIA OF
EXCELLENCE LACK ANY RATIONAL BASIS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF
EVERYDAY LIFE,” Rawls maintains that in the absence of a known conception of the good,
the parties to the original position HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO AGREE ON THE FIRST
PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE, MAXIMIZING THE "GREATEST EQUAL LIBERTY” for each
person to pursue his vision of the good (whatever it may turn out to be), rather than risk having
to accept a lesser religious or other liberty, if not to a loss of freedom altogether to advance many
of one’s spiritual ends (in case the criterion of perfection that society imposes differs from their
own view of the good).

Rawls rejected two theories of perfectionism. The first of the theories, STRICT
PERFECTIONISM, argued society should be structured in a way that produces the utmost levels
of excellence in someone, but not everyone.

The second theory, MODERATE PERFECTIONISM, asserted that society should be arranged to
achieve excellence, but not at the expense of meeting society’s basic needs.

Rawls created these theories solely to be rejected, REJECTING THEM PRIMARILY

BECAUSE OF THE CONTROVERSIES INHERENT IN DEFINING EXCELLENCE.
Rather than relying on a comprehensive definition of “the good,”
PERFECTION/EXCELLENCE CAN BE DEFINED BY AN OVERLAPPING CONSENSUS
PROMOTING BOTH SOCIAL AND PERSONAL MAXIMIZATION, ALLOWING “THE
GOOD” TO BE ENCOMPASSED BY A SET OF PURSUITS TOWARD EXCELLENCE.
https://commons.stmarytx.edu/facarticles/121/

QUESTION: Please give a current social issue (local or abroad) which you think shows
PERFECTIONISM. Do you agree with it? Why or why not?

DIFFERENT KINDS OF JUSTICE

There are different kinds of justice.

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 distribute benefits or burdens in unjust ways, there is a strong
presumption that those institutions should be changed. For example, the American institution of
slavery in the pre-civil war South was condemned as unjust because it was a glaring case of
treating people differently on the basis of race.

A second important kind is RETRIBUTIVE OR CORRECTIVE JUSTICE. 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 take into account relevant
criteria such as the seriousness of the crime and the intent of the criminal, and discount irrelevant
criteria such as race.

It would be barbarously unjust, for example, to chop off a person's hand for stealing a dime, or to
impose the death penalty on a person who by accident and without negligence injured another
party.

Studies have frequently shown that when blacks murder whites, they are much more likely to
receive death sentences than when whites murder whites or blacks murder blacks. These studies
suggest that injustice still exists in the criminal justice system in the United States.

Yet a third important kind is COMPENSATORY JUSTICE. Compensatory justice refers to the
extent to which people are fairly compensated for their injuries by those who have injured them;

just compensation is proportional to the loss inflicted on a person. This is precisely the kind of
justice that is at stake in debates over damage to workers' health in coal mines.

QUESTION: Which to you think is the most important? Distributive justice? Corrective justice?
Or Compensatory justice? Why?
Some argue that mine owners should compensate the workers whose health has been ruined.
Others argue that workers voluntarily took on this risk when they chose employment in the
mines.

The foundations of justice can be traced to the notions of social stability, interdependence, and
equal dignity. As the ethicist John Rawls has pointed out, the stability of a society—or any
group, for that matter—depends upon the extent to which the members of that society feel that
they are being treated justly.

When some of society's members come to feel that they are subject to unequal treatment, the
foundations have been laid for social unrest, disturbances, and strife.

The members of a community, Rawls holds, depend on each other, and they will retain their
social unity only to the extent that their institutions are just.

Moreover, as the philosopher Immanuel Kant and others have pointed out, human beings are all
equal in this respect: they all have the same dignity, and in virtue of this dignity they deserve to
be treated as equals. Whenever individuals are treated unequally on the basis of characteristics
that are arbitrary and irrelevant, their fundamental human dignity is violated.

Justice, then, is a central part of ethics and should be given due consideration in our moral lives.
In evaluating any moral decision, we must ask whether our actions treat all persons equally. If
not, we must determine whether the difference in treatment is justified: are the criteria we are
using relevant to the situation at hand? But justice is not the only principle to consider in making
ethical decisions. Sometimes principles of justice may need to be overridden in favor of other
kinds of moral claims such as rights or society's welfare. Nevertheless, justice is an expression of
our mutual recognition of each other's basic dignity, and an acknowledgement that if we are to
live together in an interdependent community we must treat each other as equals.

CITIZEN'S RESPONSIBILITY

When it comes to what it takes to be a good citizen, the public has a long list of traits and
behaviors that it says are important. And there is a fair amount of agreement across groups about
what it takes to be a good citizen. Still, there are differences when it comes to which aspects are
considered very important (as opposed to somewhat important), and points of emphasis differ by
party identification as well as by age. Citizenship is the state of being vested with the rights,
privileges and duties of a citizen, but it can also be defined as the character of an individual
viewed as a member of society.

Definitions, Historic Roots and Important Concepts

Civic Responsibility is defined as the "responsibility of a citizen" (Dictionary.com). It is

comprised of actions and attitudes associated with democratic governance and social
participation. Civic responsibility can include participation in government, church, volunteers
and memberships of voluntary associations. Actions of civic responsibility can be displayed in
advocacy for various causes, such as political, economic, civil, environmental or quality of life
issues.

Civic means, of, relating to, or belonging to a city, a citizen, or citizenship, municipal or civil
society.

Responsibility refers to the state or quality of being responsible or something for which one is
responsible such as a duty, obligation or burden.

A citizen is a person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a
state or union.

Citizenship means a productive, responsible, caring and contributing member of society."

Civic Responsibility dates to ancient Rome whose citizens wanted to contribute to Roman
society. Civic responsibility may have started with Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus in 519 BC.

Although Civic Responsibility has existed for centuries in society, it was officially sanctioned as
a blueprint for democracy in 1787 by the ratification of the United States Constitution.

The Constitution declared, "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States."

In the 18th and 19th centuries and through the 1930s, civic responsibility in America was tied to
a commonwealth perspective. Citizens participated in projects that shaped communities and
ultimately the nation.

Due to civic responsibility, citizenship was understood in terms of the labors of ordinary people
who created goods and undertook projects to benefit the public, as opposed to the high-minded,
virtuous and leisure activities of gentlemen.

This kind of civic identity helped create an important balance between pursuit of individual
wealth and the creation of public things (Boyte and Kari 1999).

The importance of civic responsibility is paramount to the success of DEMOCRACY and

philanthropy. By engaging in civic responsibility, citizens ensure and uphold certain democratic
values written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Those VALUES OR DUTIES include JUSTICE, FREEDOM, EQUALITY, DIVERSITY,

AUTHORITY, PRIVACY, DUE PROCESS, PROPERTY, PARTICIPATION, TRUTH,
PATRIOTISM, HUMAN RIGHTS, RULE OF LAW, TOLERANCE, MUTUAL
ASSISTANCE, SELF RESTRAINT AND SELF RESPECT.
QUESTION: of the 17 VALUES OR DUTIES upheld in the Constitution’s BILL OF RIGHTS,
which one is the most important for you in relation to CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY? Why?

SCHOOLS TEACH CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY TO STUDENTS with the goal to produce

responsible citizens and active participants in community and government.

Civic responsibility is tied to the PHILANTHROPIC SECTOR in many ways. By citizen and
corporate participation, nonprofit organizations prosper from their giving of time and money.

SERVICE LEARNING directly relates to civic responsibility and ties to the philanthropic sector
by students learning through the completion of projects within communities.

Service learning is a way in which people learn civic responsibility. Through service learning,
citizens participate in projects to help or serve the needs of other people. By getting their hands
dirty and actually doing work, citizens experience the value and impact of giving to people and
learn to be productive members of society. College students have the opportunity to participate
in any civic responsibility.

VOLUNTEERING is a form of civic responsibility, which involves the GIVING OF TIME OR

LABOR WITHOUT THE EXPECTATION OF MONETARY COMPENSATION. Many people
volunteer through local churches, animal shelters or food banks. Volunteering allows citizens the
opportunity to share their skills and talents as well as to learn new skills while helping those in
need of assistance.

CIVIC EDUCATION is a method in which to teach civic responsibility. According to the Center
of Civic Education, it is a way to PROMOTE AND ENLIGHTEN RESPONSIBLE CITIZENRY
COMMITTED TO DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES. Civic education is a means to actively
engage people in the practice of democracy.

John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what
you can do for your country.”

QUESTION: Do you agree with John F. Kennedy to “Ask NOT what your country can do for
you; ask what you can do for your country”? Why or why not?

Therefore, as citizens in a developing democracy we should balance our emphasis on individual

rights and privileges with a much stronger sense of individual, collective and communitarian
duties and obligations.

In this way many more citizens can become patriotic, responsible and effective—in solidarity
with our kapwa Pilipino. We can then build a cohesive national community, a working
democracy, and a peaceful, non-killing, just and humane society.
Citizens of progressive nations like Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Israel, the
Scandinavian countries, Germany, and the United States of America HAVE A DEEP SENSE OF
THEIR DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE NATION.

proposed by the CITIZENS’ MOVEMENT FOR A FEDERAL PHILIPPINES (CMFP) -

ARTICLE V. BILL OF DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS (CMFP wants this to be inserted in
the Philippine Constitution)

Section 1. Loyalty, obedience, cooperation. It shall be the duty of the citizen to be loyal to the
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and to honor the Philippine flag, to
defend the State and contribute to its development and welfare, to uphold the Constitution
and obey the laws, pay taxes, and cooperate with the duly constituted authorities in the
attainment and preservation of a peaceful, just, and orderly society.

Section 2. Correlative duty. The rights of the individual impose upon him or her the
correlative duty to exercise them responsibly and with due regard for the rights of others.

Section 3. Human life, dignity, rights. Citizens shall respect the life and dignity of every
human person and help uphold human rights whenever these are threatened or violated.
The State and the citizens shall prevent and prohibit the killing of humans in any form and
for whatever purpose.

Section 4. Duty to work. It shall be the duty of every citizen to engage in gainful work and to
work well to assure himself/herself and his/her family a life worthy of human dignity.

Section 5. Civic, political participation. It shall be the duty and obligation of every citizen
qualified to vote to register and cast his or her vote at every election, to participate actively
in other public and civic affairs, and to contribute to good governance, honesty and
integrity in the public service and the vitality and viability of democracy. Citizens shall
enhance their civic efficiency and political effectiveness by their involvement in people’s
organizations, non-governmental organizations, civic and professional associations,
community associations, or political parties, as well as in discussions on public issues.

Section 6. Promote equity, social justice. In their own homes, in the workplace, and in their
various organizations and institutions, citizens shall cooperate in the promotion of equity
and social justice for the good of all.

Section 7. Responsibility of youth. The youth shall assume their responsibility in developing
their social, economic, intellectual and moral well-being. They shall develop their
patriotism and nationalism and their civic and political competence in order to serve the
common good and national interest and their own welfare.

Section 8. Health, ecology, environment. Citizens shall exercise their right to a balanced and
healthful ecology, and contribute to the maintenance of a clean, enjoyable and sustainable
environment.
QUESTION: In the CMFP proposed ARTICLE V. BILL OF DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS,
Which SECTION (from 1 to 8 above) is the most important for you? Why?

◈ SELF HELP ◈

You can also refer to the sources below to help you further understand the lesson.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Global Justice

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-global/

Velasquez, M. et al. (n/d): Justice and Fairness

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/justice-and-fairness/

Tyler T.R., Allan Lind E. (2002) Procedural Justice. In: Sanders J., Hamilton V.L. (eds)
Handbook of Justice Research in Law.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-306-47379-8_3

@l03e1t3