Justice and Fairness

I see these two nouns as different concepts. I find one static or transactional and the other dynamic and ongoing.

How do you define "Justice"? How do you define "Fairness"? Are they related on a spectrum or separate ideas?

I am interested in what and how others think about these concepts. Whether or not they are related? When one concept should or could be applied but not the other and vice versa.

And how do you apply both or either in your day to day life?

a reply to: FyreByrd

Justice pertains to what you seek from written laws. Fairness is the ability to receive that justice.

⭐+🇺🇸

Both are illusive and inefficient at best; non-existent if you've got money, status and power.

"It's not fair!" is what little kids say to their parents when they don't agree with something they are told to do.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Justice is retroactive most of the time, while fairness is granted proactive. Fairness can be both though. Fairness is also a perception of something dependent on viewpoints, while justice tries to narrow it down in a way that conveys a common sense in how to deal with something that most might find a common ground.

Fairness is completely depending on personal viewpoints, while justice tries to find a common ground as an accepted ruling.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

Nowadays fairness is only found in sports, if the money involved is low. Same rules for those playing the same game.

Justice isn't always fair, and fairness isn't always justice. The 2 only occasionally coexist.

originally posted by: EternalShadow
a reply to: FyreByrd

Justice pertains to what you seek from written laws. Fairness is the ability to receive that justice.

This ^^

Justice being the application of established laws of a society, fairness is having an Even Steven chance at reaping those laws' benefits. Or consequences, if you're a dreg that doesn't learn.


If you really want to have fun, ask people to explain the differences between etiquette, courtesy, and respect. Too many people think respect is either of the aforementioned, whereas those are simply social behavior & conduct guidelines. If you follow them well enough, the RoI on it IS respect.

Because that's earned, not given out on demand.

a reply to: TDDAgain

Thoughtful answer thank you.

I'm having trouble with "Fairness is granted proactive". I assume you mean proactively however I don't quite understand. Proactive usually means an assertive action rather than reactive meaning in response to a stimulus. In this context, perhaps, fairness would be one's personal operating principle based on one's moral belief of what is fair in any given situation.

I do like the idea that Justice can only be relevant as a response to a past stimulus.

a reply to: FyreByrd
That might be my error in translation.

In this context, perhaps, fairness would be one's personal operating principle based on one's moral belief of what is fair in any given situation.

Yes, this is what I wanted to express. Fairness for me is (mostly) given upfront. Very seldom fairness is after the fact. Like for example I have an air rifle contest with a given joule number with someone. Joule number determines FPS, provided we both use the same pellets.

Fairness is for once that I do not crank up the Joule number by exchanging the spring. That would be "proactive" as I tried to word it, but based on moral. But it can also be granted by me when I win but it is discovered my opponent had a broken spring, thuss no chance to compete with me. Then for me, it would be fair to say "let's give it another try with your repaired gun, the conditions were not fair (as in, balanced).

a reply to: FyreByrd

Good question.

After some consideration, and a couple of shots of tequila, I would say that I consider Justice to be a subset of Fairness. Something that is Fair doesn't necessarily have to be Just. But something that is Just is always Fair. I can try to be Fair with someone, but I don't presume to be Just with someone. Being Just with someone would require a judgement on my part. "Don't judge your neighbor until you've walked a mile in their moccasins."

Already I'm thinking of examples that may contradict my statement. I'll have to give this more thought.

a reply to: FyreByrd

The terms are synonymous. I think it was Aristotle who first connected justice to fairness. Both are concerned with human relations in the sense of giving others what they are due, what they deserve.

The Kantian notion of justice makes more sense, at least to me. Justice can be conceived as to whether or not we respect the equal freedom of others to live their lives as they see fit. It’s not so much about distribution, but about conduct and behavior.