Fairness means treating things or people in a reasonable, unbiased, and non-discriminatory way. For example, when a teacher grades students, they should use the same standards and rules, and not give high or low scores based on personal likes or dislikes. That's what fairness is about.
Justice means handling things according to the law or rules, without engaging in unjust or deceptive behavior. For instance, when a police officer catches a thief, they should punish them according to the law, without favoring them because they are a relative or a friend. That's what justice is about.
Equality means that all parties have the same rights, opportunities, and status. It is the ideal state of fairness and the highest form of fairness. For example, boys and girls have the right to education, work, and pursue their dreams without discrimination or limitations based on gender. That's what equality is about.
We need these concepts because they help us build a harmonious, civilized, and progressive society. Without these concepts, people would bully, fight, and snatch from each other, and society would descend into chaos without order and safety. We would also lose our dignity and happiness.
These concepts are interconnected and can sometimes conflict with each other. They are interconnected because they all originate from human conscience and morality, aiming to achieve human well-being and justice. They can conflict because in specific situations, they may contradict or sacrifice each other. For example, in a society with limited resources, achieving complete equality may require sacrificing the interests or rights of some individuals. In a society with imperfect laws, achieving perfect justice may mean disregarding some people's emotions or personal relationships.
Now, I'll give you a few examples to help you understand these principles better.
Let's imagine a race with two participants, A and B. Participant A is a healthy and well-trained athlete, while participant B is a disabled beginner. The rule of the race is that the first person to reach the finish line wins.
If we want to be fair, both A and B should start the race from the same starting line without any advantages or disadvantages. In this case, A is likely to win the race easily, while B might fall behind by a large margin. B might feel that it's unfair because their physical condition is different from A's, and they didn't have a fair chance to compete.
If we want to be just, we should determine the winner based on the rules of the race, regardless of the personal circumstances of the participants. In this case, A is still likely to win, and B is likely to lose. B might feel that it's unjust because they think the race rules are biased against them and didn't consider their special circumstances.
If we want to achieve equality, we should ensure that both A and B have an equal opportunity to win, regardless of their abilities. We might provide B with some special assistance or compensation, such as allowing them to start the race a bit ahead or providing them with some assistive tools. This way, both A and B have the possibility of winning or losing the race. However, A might feel that it's unequal because they believe they put in more effort and sweat but didn't receive the deserved reward.
As you can see, there can be conflicts between fairness, justice, and equality in this example. What do you think about this example? How do you think we should handle the situation to be the most reasonable?
Here's another example: If we have 100 dollars and we want to divide it fairly between two families. The first family has 2 people, and the second family has 100 people. How can we distribute the money fairly?
Equal distribution: We can divide the 100 dollars equally between the two families. This means each family will receive 50 dollars. Even though the second family has more members, equal distribution ensures that each family gets the same amount, emphasizing equality.
Needs-based distribution: We can distribute the money based on each family's needs. Since the first family has only 2 people, it may be easier to fulfill their basic needs, so they can be given a smaller amount. The second family has more members to take care of, so they can be given a larger amount to meet their greater needs.
Proportional distribution: We can divide the 100 dollars based on the proportion of each family's population. The first family represents approximately 2/102 (about 0.02) of the total population, and the second family represents approximately 100/102 (about 0.98) of the total population. Therefore, the first family would receive around 2 dollars, while the second family would receive around 98 dollars. This distribution method considers the difference in family sizes and allocates resources proportionally.
No matter which distribution method we choose, the key to fairness is ensuring that the distribution process is transparent, fair, and based on commonly agreed-upon principles to respect the rights and needs of each family. In real-life situations, people may adopt different approaches to balance fairness and reasonableness, considering specific conditions and definitions of fairness.
Of course, each of these methods has its own advantages, disadvantages, and points of controversy. Which method do you think is more reasonable? Or do you have any other ideas?
So, in real life, we need to flexibly apply these concepts based on different situations and environments, seeking a reasonable and acceptable balance. We should also respect and understand others' different perspectives and feelings about these concepts, and communicate and negotiate with them in a friendly manner.
