The Significance of Fair Justice
Lovely Zharlotte A. D`Argandoña
Jessa Mae G. Tablo
AUTHORS
SUBMITTED TO:
Rowena P. De Roselin
SY 2023-2024
The Significance of Fair Justice
Nowadays, there are a lot of people who can make anything go wrong
in order to achieve their goals. As the Philippines’ economy grows. A growing
number of people are taking part in illegal activities run by dishonest
individuals. The economy is growing because many people want to live more
luxurious lives. This gives them the freedom to do things to others that they
do not want to do. People with evil intentions can turn their bad deeds on
others in order to avoid being discovered. While some people may be born
sinners, and other may suffer in the blame of negative consequences of
others, particularly if they have no one to turn to in the face of the law. The
fair and unbiased treatment of people or groups, making sure that everyone
is treated in accordance with their rights and the relevant laws, is what is
known as justice. It is a cornerstone of society, supporting the values of
justice, equality, and decency toward all people. Justice is essential to
upholding peace, societal order, and people's sense of security and trust in
one another.
Justice is essential because it protects both individual and group
rights. By guaranteeing that nobody is above the law, it promotes the
preservation of the balance of power and guards against misuse. Fairness
and equality are also promoted by justice, and this motivates individuals to
respect and uphold the law. People feel safe and secure in a just society
because they trust that the legal system will treat them fairly and that their
rights will be upheld. Furthermore, fostering social peace and cohesion
requires fairness. People are more inclined to partner and have mutual trust
when they believe that the system is impartial and fair. A more stable and
affluent society follows from this. Furthermore, the search for justice
frequently results in the discovery and correction of social injustices, which
can promote advancement and constructive social change.
In conclusion, justice is essential for upholding social order, defending
individual rights, fostering collaboration and trust, guaranteeing
accountability, and advancing social progress.
Societies would be more prone to inequity, conflict, and instability in
the absence of justice.
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Justice is a multifaceted concept that resonates with societies
worldwide. It encompasses notions of fairness, equity, moral
behavior, lawfulness, and order. In the Philippines, there are reports that
indicate that some groups of people are not getting fair justice. For example,
according to an article from Rappler, human rights are for everyone and not
just for 'criminals'. However, there are times when these rights are not
properly exercised, especially among poor and marginalized groups. Atty.
Jose Manuel "Chel" Diokno, former Dean of De La Salle University College of
Law, believes that the country's slow justice system is one of the reasons
why the Philippines is not developing, and some are not getting justice.
Examples of inequality in justice include the slow pace of court cases, the
existence of a 'sporting system', and the targeting of human rights
organizations.
The rights to be protected by the government are set forth in Article III of the
1987 Philippine Constitution, but in some cases these rights are not complied
with. Ensuring fair justice for all is an important aspect of a democratic
society.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The main objective of this study is to know and have knowledge
in terms of fairness in justice, also to inform others especially the people that
didn`t getting enough justice. Specially, this study aims to respond to the
following questions:
Is there any fairness in justice?
The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely
accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years
ago—is the principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequal’s
unequally." In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed
as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in
ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved."
The foundations of justice can be traced to the notions of social stability,
interdependence, and equal dignity. As the ethicist John Rawls has pointed
out, the stability of a society—or any group, for that matter—depends upon
the extent to which the members of that society feel that they are being
treated justly. When some of society's members come to feel that they are
subject to unequal treatment, the foundations have been laid for social
unrest, disturbances, and strife. The members of a community, Rawls holds,
depend on each other, and they will retain their social unity only to the
extent that their institutions are just. Ethics V3 N2 (Spring 1990)
How important the justice in our society?
People currently regard justice as the main principle of institutions and
society, while in ancient Greek people took it as the virtue of citizens. This
article analyzes Aristotle’s virtue of justice in his method of virtue ethics,
discussing the nature of virtue, how justice is the virtue of citizens, what kind
of virtue the justice of citizens is, and the prospect of the virtue of justice
against a background of institutional justice. Since virtue can be said to be a
specific individual character, Aristotle also defines the virtue of justice as the
character of justice, with which citizens act justly and desire to do what is
just. The virtue of justice is also an individual ethical virtue, differing from
others for it is at the same time a social ethic. We can call the virtue of
justice a “non-individual individual ethical virtue.” It has been explained as
between pure altruism and egoism, which is a wrong explanation. John Rawls
regards justice as the first virtue of social institutions, challenging Aristotle's
virtue of justice, an assertion which also needs further deliberation. HUANG,
X. (2007).
In Plato's ideal city, justice demands that the philosopher perform the
task of ruling. According to the overall thesis of the dialogue-justice pays-it
should follow that it is in the self-interest of the philosopher to rule. But Plato
also thinks that whenever people with access to political power believe that
they themselves benefit by ruling, good government is impossible. For then
it is inevitable, in Plato's opinion, that conflict and disunity will arise in the
city as a result of different people or factions competing for power. So, it is
fundamental to the Republic's political philosophy that those who rule regard
ruling as something that is not in their self-interest, as something that is evil
rather than good for themselves. The present paper will argue that this
essential requirement for the government of the ideal city is clearly present
in the Republic: the philosopher-kings rightly regard ruling as an intrinsic
evil. But then in this case, a very important case, Plato's argument that
justice is in one's self-interest breaks down. Heinaman, R. (2004).
Do we need justice?
Both social equity and social justice are concerned with promoting
fairness and equality within a society, but they do so in different ways. Social
equity focuses on ensuring that everyone has the same opportunity to
succeed, while social justice addresses the underlying systems and
structures of oppression that contribute to inequality and injustice. We begin
by tracing the evolution of social equity and social justice concepts in
academic public administration. We then borrow a framework from social
psychology to illustrate how public administration has already incorporated
research relevant to social justice into its intellectual endeavors and how the
discipline can continue to do so more explicitly. The editorial concludes with
a discussion of the potential for social justice to enrich public administration
theory and practice and make it more relevant for addressing complex social
problems. Wright, J. (2023)
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
According to the research article of (Rawls 1958) “IT MIGHT seem at
first sight that the concepts of justice and fairness are the same, and that
there is no reason to distinguish them, or to say that one is more
fundamental than the other. I think that this impression is mistaken.” On this
article John Rawls stated that the fundamental idea in the concept of justice
is fairness. He also stated that he considers justice only as a virtue of social
institutions, or what he shall call practices.
As one might say, on what fair is. Fairness can mean many things. Whatever it may
mean, it is important; and this is for several reasons. Governments make collective
decisions for a political unit, decisions that are binding and authoritative for a collectivity
(Verba, S. 2006).
Amartya Sen (2012) argues that for the advancement of justice identification of 'perfect'
justice is neither necessary nor sufficient. He replaces 'perfect' justice with comparative
justice. Comparative justice limits itself to comparing social states with respect to
degrees of justice. Sen's central thesis is that identifying 'perfect' justice and comparing
imperfect social states are 'analytically disjoined'. This essay refutes Sen's thesis by
demonstrating that to be able to make adequate comparisons we need to identify and
integrate criteria of comparison. This is precisely the aim of a theory of justice (such as
John Rawls's theory): identifying, integrating and ordering relevant principles of justice.
The same integrated criteria that determine 'perfect' justice are needed to be able to
adequately compare imperfect social states. Sen's alternative approach, which is based
on social choice theory, is incapable of avoiding contrary, indeterminate or incoherent
directives where plural principles of justice conflict
Brian Duigman Social justice is both a theoretical concept and a
practical ideal—an object of social-scientific and philosophical
understanding and debate as well as a real-world goal of social
and political reform movements. In general, practical ideals of
social justice represent an attempt to realize a
certain conception of social justice in a particular state or
society. Accordingly, such ideals tend to vary with the historical
and cultural circumstances in which they are pursued; they may
also depend upon current social-scientific understandings of the
institutions to be reformed, abolished, or created.
REFERENCES
Verba, S. (2006). Fairness, Equality, and Democracy: Three Big Words. Social Research, 73(2),
499–540. [Link]
Rawls, J. (1958). Justice as Fairness. The Philosophical Review, 67(2), 164–194.
[Link]
HUANG, X. (2007). Justice as a virtue: An analysis of Aristotle’s virtue of justice. Frontiers of
Philosophy in China, 2(2), 265–279. [Link]
Heinaman, R. (2004). Why Justice Does Not Pay in Plato’s “Republic.” The Classical Quarterly,
54(2), 379–393. [Link]
Stivers, C., Pandey, S. K., DeHart‐Davis, L., Hall, J. L., Newcomer, K., Portillo, S., ... & Wright, J. (2023).
Beyond social equity: Talking social justice in public administration. Public Administration Review, 83(2),
229-240.
Boot, M. (2012). The Aim of a Theory of Justice. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 15(1), 7–
21. [Link]
Duignan, Brian. "social justice". Encyclopedia Britannica, 9 Mar. 2024,
[Link] Accessed 27 March 2024.