Just vs Fair

[wolfy]

I get stuck on that question. Someone please help me out.

 

[Nicodemus]

I think they basically mean the same. It seems to me that a person supposed to be just ought to be just, while a person supposed to be fair should be fair. Therefore, they are used in different contexts (in court or in a football match).

 

[Qlip]

Just is legalistic. A Just action may not be a fair action. Fairness is moral.

 

[Jaguar]

Fair to me is not moral, fair to me is equitable. But then, look at a definition of equitable:

equitable

1. impartial or reasonable; fair; just an equitable decision

Lol.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I think they're extremely close in meaning, but if I had to differentiate, I'd call just the ethical thing to do, and fair the equitable thing to do.

As an example, using these definitions affirmative action would be just but not fair.

 

[rav3n]

This is a perspective issue.

Example:

Two squabbling siblings in the back seat of the car. Parent without even turning around, says "Both of you settle down or you're not going to like what I will do".

Fair or evenhanded treatment since the children are being treated equally.
Unjust since there was probably an instigator.

 

[Ginkgo]

Justice must always be fair. Fairness doesn't always have to be just.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Fair is when the same thing happens equally. The opposite of fair is bias.

Just is when the right thing happens regardless of whether equal or not. The opposite of justice is injustice.

 

[Jaguar]

"Justice" to some, is holding a gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger.

 

[Seymour]

I like this guy's take, which is similar to PMEffEmDoubleyou's (and others'):

In the context of intractable conflict, the terms 'justice' and 'fairness' are often used interchangeably.

Taken in its broader sense, justice is action in accordance with the requirements of some law.[1] Some maintain that justice stems from God's will or command, while others believe that justice is inherent in nature itself. Still others believe that justice consists of rules common to all humanity that emerge out of some sort of consensus. This sort of justice is often thought of as something higher than a society's legal system. It is in those cases where an action seems to violate some universal rule of conduct that we are likely to call it "unjust."

In its narrower sense, justice is fairness. It is action that pays due regard to the proper interests, property, and safety of one's fellows.[2] While justice in the broader sense is often thought of as transcendental, justice as fairness is more context-bound. Parties concerned with fairness typically strive to work out something comfortable and adopt procedures that resemble rules of a game. They work to ensure that people receive their "fair share" of benefits and burdens and adhere to a system of "fair play."

I think that fits reasonably well with the connotations of just vs fair. Fairness is more context-dependent and limited in scope, while justice is more concerned with the consistent application of (possibly universal) laws and principles.

 

[Rasofy]

Just = morally reasonable (essentially subjective)
Fair= balanced (essentially objective)

 

[wolfy]

Thanks for all the responses.

Reading the responses, it would seem to me that just would trump fair in the majority of cases. The trick would be putting your finger on what is just exactly. But in the ideal situation just would beat fair it seems.

Why would someone favour fair if the just decision was obvious?

This is a perspective issue.

Example:

Two squabbling siblings in the back seat of the car. Parent without even turning around, says "Both of you settle down or you're not going to like what I will do".

Fair or evenhanded treatment since the children are being treated equally.
Unjust since there was probably an instigator.

I often treat the situation even-handedly, basically I am just enforcing peace. In those situations usually neither are punished really, just peace is enforced. It's often hard to figure it all out... if it is then justice prevails!

No fighting at the game table.

 

[nonsequitur]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness

 

[InvisibleJim]

Observe my execution of fair behaviour.

You will understand the difference eventually.

 

[nonsequitur]

Observe my execution of fair behaviour.

You will understand the difference eventually.

I think I know what you're going on about, and I'm sure that many others have heard your views.

My personal perspective is that with regards to what you're concerned about, people are people. Application of rules and standards cannot be uniform given that individuals have different values and the rules mean different things to different people. i.e. Individuals may not value "fairness" or "justice" or "equal application" as much as another. This is particularly so regarding fora that people are deeply emotionally invested in. Of course, having such a reality pointed out continually disturbs self-image, causing anger and defensiveness. Therefore while I, and other members do understand your views, a more constructive (and effective) approach would probably involve changing current attitudes by convincing others of the merit of it. Moreover, the forum is hardly a place with material consequences, unlike a court of law, as such, I personally don't think it worthwhile fighting for "fairness" or "justice" in such an arena.

I personally couldn't care less about that issue because I'm just here for the amusement and am very non-confrontational. But it kinda pains me (because I appreciate your contribution and like you personally) to see you banging your head against a brick wall and alienating others to counter-productively prove a point.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I personally couldn't care less about that issue because I'm just here for the amusement and am very non-confrontational. But it kinda pains me (because I appreciate your contribution and like you personally) to see you banging your head against a brick wall and alienating others to counter-productively prove a point.

I have heard this viewpoint on multiple occassions. The answer is simple; if others are unwilling to improve because it is not worth the time, then I will not compromise because by the same reasoning it is not worth the time. However, I will continue to act completely in line with the forum rules in terms of my posts.

However, an important moral must be consider: I am no better than anyone, but damn if anyone thinks they are better than me. Thus where the rules have been waived in a bias way I will now assume the rule de facto no longer exists. The fact they may be controversial is irrelevant because simply it is not worth the time.

The offended can take responsibility for their decisions and understand they have generated their own offense. They have had enough warnings and red flags and back offs. I've experienced my enjoyment being trashed gradually over time until it is beyond ridiculous, with my intellectual headspace on the ventrilo server being trashed; the members who I value in the forum being pushed out by mods justifying their friends behaviour and my contributions being shoved to the graveyard in complete bias, now they can experience that action entirely fairly in return.

 

[nonsequitur]

I have heard this viewpoint on multiple occassions. The answer is simple; if others are unwilling to improve because it is not worth the time, then I will not compromise because by the same reasoning it is not worth the time. However, I will continue to act completely in line with the forum rules in terms of my posts.

However, an important moral must be consider: I am no better than anyone, but damn if anyone thinks they are better than me. Thus where the rules have been waived in a bias way I will now assume the rule de facto no longer exists. The fact they may be controversial is irrelevant because simply it is not worth the time.

The offended can take responsibility for their decisions and understand they have generated their own offense. They have had enough warnings and red flags and back offs. I've experienced my enjoyment being trashed gradually over time until it is beyond ridiculous, with my intellectual headspace on the ventrilo server being trashed; the members who I value in the forum being pushed out by mods justifying their friends behaviour and my contributions being shoved to the graveyard in complete bias, now they can experience that action entirely fairly in return.

I see, and I'm sorry to hear that your experience here has gone down the drain. I've always enjoyed talking to you and reading your posts (granted, I've kinda disappeared for months at a time...).

I do think, however, that your expectations of standards of conduct are too high for the average individual. Or perhaps I'm too cynical?

It's all well and good to debate fairness and justice in theory but application is far more difficult and much more complicated.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I see, and I'm sorry to hear that your experience here has gone down the drain. I've always enjoyed talking to you and reading your posts (granted, I've kinda disappeared for months at a time...).

I do think, however, that your expectations of standards of conduct are too high for the average individual. Or perhaps I'm too cynical?

It's all well and good to debate fairness and justice in theory but application is far more difficult and much more complicated.

Are you sure you understood what the difference between Fair and Just was when you mentioned high?

There doesn't need to be a high standard, there need only be a standard.

Either way, my posts are perfectly in line with the actions of other members of the forum. Learn to love it.

Otherwise I'm now creating my standard as I go.

 

[nonsequitur]

Are you sure you understood what the difference between Fair and Just was when you mentioned high?

There doesn't need to be a high standard, there need only be a standard.

Either way, my posts are perfectly in line with the actions of other members of the forum. Learn to love it.

Otherwise I'm now creating my standard as I go.

I see. Well, what I meant by having "high standards" is "actually expecting a standard to be adhered to". In most organisations, online or otherwise, this isn't true except on the surface. That's also why I wondered if I'm too cynical.

Maybe I shouldn't be amused at how meta this is turning out to be... On the good side of things, this is very on-topic.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I see. Well, what I meant by having "high standards" is "actually expecting a standard to be adhered to". In most organisations, online or otherwise, this isn't true except on the surface. That's also why I wondered if I'm too cynical.

Maybe I shouldn't be amused at how meta this is turning out to be... On the good side of things, this is very on-topic.

You are making the error of assuming what you see in your academic labs are industry standard. Infact, in the real world (not the bullshit, public sector or shelf filling or glass cleaning jobs) most people peer review between companies and individuals many times. That's called being professional and it is industry standard.