Taken in its broader sense, justice is action in accordance with the requirements of some law. Some maintain that justice stems from Allah'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 emerges 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. 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. The principles of justice and fairness can be thought of as rules of "fair play" for issues of social justice. Whether they turn out to be grounded in universal laws or ones that are more context bound, these principles determine the way in which the various type of justice are carried out. For example, principles of distributive justice determine what counts as a "fair share" of particular good, while principles of retribution shape our response to activity that violates a society's rules of "fair play." Social justice requires both that the rules be fair, and also that people play by the rules.
People often frame justice issues in terms of fairness and invoke principles of justice and fairness to explain their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the organizations they are part of, as well as their state or government. They want institutions to treat them fairly and to operate according to fair rules. What constitutes fair treatment and fair rules is often expressed by a variety of justice principles. Principles of equity, equality, and need are most relevant in the context of distributive justice, but might play a role in a variety of social justice issues.
These principles all appeal to the notion of desert, the idea that fair treatment is a matter of giving people what they deserve. In general, people deserve to be rewarded for their effort and productivity, punished for their transgressions, treated as equal persons, and have their basic needs met. However, because these principles may come into conflict, it is often difficult to achieve all of these goals simultaneously. According to the principle of equity, a fair economic system is one that distributes goods to individuals in proportion to their input. While input typically comes in the form of productivity, ability or talent might also play a role. People who produce more or better products...either by working harder, or by being more talented, this argument goes, should be paid more for their efforts than should people who produce less.
In addition, the idea that justice requires the unequal treatment of unequal is in tension with the principle of equality. This principle of egalitarianism suggests that the fairest allocation is one that distributes benefits and burdens equally among all parties. A principle of need, on the other hand, proposes that we strive for an equal outcome in which all society or group members get what they need. Thus poor people would get more money, and richer people would get less. This principle is sometimes criticized because it does not recognize differences in productive contributions or distinguish between real needs and purported needs. Some have suggested that equity, equality, and need are not principles adopted for their own sake, but rather ones endorsed to advance some social goal; for example, while equity tends to foster productivity, principles of equality and need tend to stress the importance of positive interpersonal relationships and a sense of belonging among society members.
Principles of justice and fairness are also central to procedural, retributive, and restorative justice. Such principles are supposed to ensure procedures that generate unbiased, consistent, and reliable decisions. Here the focus is on carrying out set rules in a fair manner so that a just outcome might be reached. Fair procedures are central to the legitimacy of decisions reached and individuals' acceptance of those decisions. To ensure fair procedures, both in the context of legal proceedings, as well as in negotiation and mediation, the third party carrying out those procedures must be impartial.
This means they must make an honest, unbiased decision based on appropriate information. For example, judges should be impartial, and facilitators should not exhibit any prejudice that gives one party unfair advantages. The rules themselves should also be impartial so that they do not favor some people over others from the outset. An unbiased, universally applied procedure, whether it serves to distribute wealth or deliver decisions, can ensure impartiality as well as consistency. The principle of consistency proposes that the distinction of some versus others should reflect genuine aspects of personal identity rather than extraneous features of the differentiating mechanism itself. In other words, the institutional mechanism in question should treat like cases alike and ensure a level playing field for all parties.
The principle of standing suggests that people value their membership in a group and those societal institutions and decision making procedures should affirm their status as members. For example, it might follow from this principle that all stakeholders should have a voice in the decision making process. In particular, disadvantaged members of a group or society should be empowered and given an opportunity to be heard. When decision making procedures treat people with respect and dignity, they feel affirmed. A central premise of restorative justice, for example, is that those directly affected by the offense should have a voice and representation in the decision making process regarding the aftermath of the offense be it punishment and or restitution. Related to issues of respect and dignity is the principle of trust.
One measure of fairness is whether society members believe that authorities are concerned with their well being and needs. People's judgments of procedural fairness result from perceptions that they have been treated honestly, openly, and with consideration. If they believe that the authority took their viewpoints into account and tried to treat them fairly, they are more likely to support and engage in the broader social system.