Lesson 9

Justice and Fairness

Nature of justice
St. Thomas Aquinas defines justice as “the firm and constant will to give to each
one his due.” It means that justice is giving each person what he or she deserves.

Three characteristics of justice are:

1. Justice is a social norm. It guides how people should relate in a fair manner to
one another.
2. It is “approbative” because judging an action to be just, needs approval of that
action.
3. It is obligatory. It must be followed at all times.

The basic theories pertaining to the essence of justice are:

1. Positive law theory which describes justice as agreement with the law. So,
what is just becomes legal.
2. Social good theory which describes justice as an obligation to promote the
social good. But not every promotion of social good is an obligation in justice, for
example, works of mercy either spiritual (pray for the dead) or corporal (feed the
hungry). However, a work of mercy is an OBLIGATION in CHARITY.
3. Natural right theory which claims that natural right is the ultimate basis of
justice because all human rights are primarily derived from the natural law and the
positive law. But positive law must agree with the natural law and not contradict it.

What does positive law mean?

The positive law refers to laws or decrees and regulations that have been
enacted or made by a legislature, for examples, rules in school, or city ordinances.

Natural law

Natural law is not enacted by government. It is derived from human nature, not
from rules of society. It is applied to everyone, everywhere in relation to moral acts. For
example, natural law assumes that everyone believes killing another person is wrong
and that punishment for killing is right.
In philosophical and ethical theory, it helps people form the sense of right and
wrong on their choices and behavior.

Justice and fairness

When decisions have to be made about how benefits and works should be
distributed among a group of people, questions of justice or fairness arise. When such
conflicts arise we need principles of justice to determine what people should receive
and how much.
Principles of Justice

The most fundamental principle of justice as defined by Aristotle more than two
thousand years ago is the principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequals
unequally."
This principle is expressed in this example: If Pedro and Maria both do the same
work, and there are no relevant differences between them or the work they are doing,
then for justice’s sake they should be paid the same wages. But if Pedro is paid more
than Maria simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we have an
injustice—a form of discrimination.
There are, however, many differences that are justifiable criteria for treating
people differently. For example, we think it is fair when the person who is first in a line at
a counter is given first the service and attention; we think it is just when persons are
punished for doing wrong and not punishing others who have done nothing wrong; and
we think it is fair when those who make a greater contribution to a project receive more
benefits than others who give lesser contribution.
On the other hand, there are also criteria that we believe are not justifiable
grounds for special treatment. In 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
orientations. Do you think it is fair enough for a teacher to give special treatment to
some favored students? Or is it fair for a teacher to give special test to students who
ask for it because of meritorious reason? How about if the reason (or excuse) is not
meritorious?
The principle of justice requires fairness which can be described as the principle
that decisions ought to be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias,
prejudice, or on giving benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.
In other words, principle of justice is the quality of not being biased or prejudiced,
for example, in competition, we choose the judges based on their reputations for
integrity and impartiality.

Example of impartiality in action

While providing food and clothing to the needy is clearly an obligation, it seems
that I have a special obligation to my own children over the children of strangers to
make sure that they have food and clothing. I see the obligation to feed the strangers
but I am more obligated to feed my own family, and to do such act is reasonable and
not being unfair.

How do we show impartiality?

1) Take into account individual needs and requirements in all of our actions.
2) Understand that treating everyone fairly does not mean everyone should be
treated the same.
3) Always give people an equal opportunity to express their views.
 
Classifications of Justice
 1. Justice is defined as giving to a person what is his own by right and what is
due to him by right. This is known as attributive justice.
2. Since justice is needed for social co-existence any violation to the rules of
order calls for reparation of the injury inflicted. It demands indemnification. This is
known as retributive or vindicative justice. Indemnification means to compensate or
give someone money or another kind of payment for some damage, loss, or injury.
Retributive justice also refers to the extent to which punishments are fair and just.
It would be unjustly cruel, for example, to chop off a person's hand for stealing, or
hagbongon ang estudyante kay very disrespectful to his/her teacher bisan og kamao sa
klase.
3. Justice renders to each person what is his due by right that means what he
does not yet own but is entitled to receive like remuneration, compensation or benefit.
Since what is due to the person is based on equality in exchange, distribution, and
contribution this is called proportional justice which has four forms, namely:
commutative, distributive, contributive, and social justice.
a) Commutative justice commands that exchange of goods and services takes
place according to strict equality of values. It demands just regulation of prices
(suggested retail price must be respected), just payments of work (daily wage should be
followed), and just regulation of all commercial exchanges.
b) Distributive justice demands that benefits and burdens (works) be distributed
in the community according to proportionate equality. Award of favors must be
proportionate and impartial, otherwise it violates distributive justice.
c) Contributive or legal justice obliges the members of a community to comply
with the demands of the common good. It obliges citizens to pay taxes, obey laws, or
even render military service, etc. and it obliges authorities to contribute to the common
good by appropriate laws.
d) Social justice refers to the economic welfare of social groups. It demands a
proportionate share. Pure profits of excessive nature on the part of the management is
against the demands of social justice.
Social justice also demands a proportionate and equitable distribution of the
wealth of a nation among the different classes in society. So the concentration of a
nation’s wealth and landownership in the hands of a few extremely rich families, while
the majority of citizens live in poverty and even misery is against social justice.
Finally social justice binds the rich countries to assist nations in poverty and
misery, so that they can live in manner worthy of human beings.
The foundations of justice can be traced to the notions of social stability,
interdependence, and equal dignity.
Therefore, 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 or not. For this reason, we must ask: “Are the criteria we are using
significantly fair and just to the situation?”