*gets out screwdriver and crescent wrench*
although lots of people have given more insightful responses, i actually think the OP is going in the right direction (in a certain sense) than those and i will explain why.
the reason the concept of fairness exists is because it creates a baseline for everyone to adhere to, and allows society to function better overall.
the only way to be truly fair is to ignore exceptions, that is true objectivity. there is a fundamental difference between needing to expand the baseline to cover such exceptions in a way that can still apply to everyone and actually making an exception to said baseline.
there will always be people that claim exception, but the reason they shouldn't is because statistically, for every one thing they think they should be exempt of there will be far more things that other people could claim exemption from. although it might be stupid and inefficient, ultimately as long as everyone is held against the same objective, unconditional guideline, it is fair.
now, if i had to correlate this to T/F, I would say that T-type will more readily grasp this importance (i cant help but word it that way, im a T afterall) while an F-type will not, thus they would be more inclined to treat each person individually... which is intrinsically unfair and un-objective.
with that said, it is more considerate of each person's feelings of individuality... most people do not understand the aforementioned, perhaps it is truly fair, then, to consider each unfairly, since being truly objective is actually out of the norm, which would be unfair!
what's more fair, perpetuating unfairness to everyone fairly, or being unfair in the sense that you are one person who judges everyone fairly when most people dont.
errrrr, its friday, i shouldnt have to think this hard