Back More
Salem Press

Table of Contents

Ethics: Questions & Morality of Human Actions, 3rd Edition

Fairness

by Mario F. Morelli

Definition: Moral principle used to judge procedures for distributing benefits and burdens justly and equally among parties

Type of ethics: Beliefs and practices

Significance: As an ethical principle, fairness regulates an exceptionally wide range of activities, from the conduct of games and other frivolous pastimes, to hiring and employment practices, to equal protection of the law and other fundamental civil rights.

Fairness is one of several ethical concepts, along with justice and equity, that are concerned with the distribution of benefits and burdens among individuals and groups. It is sometimes used in a broad sense, connoting attitudes and features characteristic of much wrongdoing, including putting one’s own interests ahead of others and favoring oneself or one’s own at the expense of others. In this broad sense, fairness is a central component of the moral point of view, in contrast to a purely egoistic or self-interested standpoint. The individual adopting the moral point of view is fair-minded, looking at claims in a balanced, impartial, and reasonable way.

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, in his classic discussion of justice in book 5 of the Nicomachean Ethics, observed that justice is used in a narrow sense as well as a broad sense. Fairness, like justice, seems to have a narrower sense as well. In fact, it might be more accurate to say it has several narrower senses or uses. One of these senses is exemplified in cases of the differential treatment of individuals on arbitrary or irrelevant grounds. The awarding of a job on the basis of political favoritism or nepotism is usually condemned as unfair. Another related sense is that used in connection with procedures; for example, when people speak of a fair trial or a fair contest. In these cases, fairness is a matter of there being rules or guidelines that are closely followed.

Additionally, the rules or guidelines shaping the procedure should not give an undue advantage to certain parties. Sometimes these notions are referred to as “procedural fairness” and “background fairness.” A third sense involves profiting at another’s expense; if such advantage-taking is not allowed by the rules of some competition, it is deemed unfair.

Oddly, however, allowing another to gain at one’s own expense is not regarded as unfair. A fourth sense of fairness and unfairness is found in situations of blame and punishment: Punishing an innocent person (“scapegoating”) and blaming or punishing an individual more than is deserved are seen as unfair. While several elements of unfairness are present in such cases, the main offense to fairness seems to be the singling out of the individual for disfavor, the sacrificing of that individual even if he or she is not totally innocent and even if some greater good will come of it.

“Fairness” vs. “Justness”

While the concepts of justice and fairness are closely related and are used interchangeably in some contexts, they are not identical. The terms “just” and “unjust” often carry a stronger tone of condemnation than do “fair” and “unfair.” At times, there is a readiness to admit that something is unfair but to tolerate it nevertheless, perhaps with an observation that “life is not fair.” By contrast, the idea of tolerable or justifiable injustices is not countenanced. John Stuart Mill, in his discussion of justice in Utilitarianism (1861), made note of the avoidance of the idea that there can be “laudable injustice” by accommodating language so that “we usually say, not that justice must give way to some other moral principle, but that what is just in the ordinary case is, by reason of that other principle, not just in the particular case.” Furthermore, fairness seems more appropriately applied to procedures and processes, while justice is often used for outcomes. Familiar examples of this are references to fair trials and just verdicts.

In A Theory of Justice (1971), philosopher John Rawls develops a theory of social justice that he calls “justice as fairness.” He makes use of this association of the idea of fairness with procedures to extract principles of a just society as ones that would be the outcome of a bargaining process among parties under conditions marked by background fairness. One notion of fairness discussed by Rawls is identified with pure procedural justice. Pure procedural justice is characterized by the existence of a correct or fair procedure without an independent criterion of a correct or right result. In such a situation, provided the procedure has been followed, the result is correct or fair, whatever it happens to be. The fairness of the procedure transfers to the result.

In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to develop a theory of a just society by treating social justice as a type of fairness or pure procedural justice. Pure procedural justice is contrasted with perfect procedural justice, in which there is an independent criterion of a correct result and the possibility of devising a procedure to arrive at that result, and imperfect procedural justice, in which there is an independent criterion of a correct outcome but no possibility of devising a procedure to consistently achieve that outcome.

Rawls also provides an extensive discussion of the principle of fairness or fair play. This is a principle of duty or right action, which relates to the sense of fairness in not taking advantage of others. If people enjoy the benefits of cooperative activities, benefits made possible by the contributions of others, then they have a duty to contribute their share or to do their part. Otherwise they are “free-riding.” The tax evader who benefits from tax-supported programs is an example of a person unfairly benefiting from the efforts of others.

Further Reading

1 

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated and edited by Roger Crisp. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

2 

Barry, Brian. Political Argument. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1965.

3 

Mendus, Susan. Impartiality in Moral and Political Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

4 

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Edited by George Sher. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001.

5 

Rawls, John. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Edited by Erin Kelly. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2001.

6 

_______. A Theory of Justice. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999.

7 

Shklar, Judith N. The Faces of Injustice. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1990.

Citation Types

Type
Format
MLA 9th
Morelli, Mario F. "Fairness." Ethics: Questions & Morality of Human Actions, 3rd Edition, edited by George Lucas & John K. Roth, Salem Press, 2019. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=Ethics_0026.
APA 7th
Morelli, M. F. (2019). Fairness. In G. Lucas & J. K. Roth (Eds.), Ethics: Questions & Morality of Human Actions, 3rd Edition. Salem Press. online.salempress.com.
CMOS 17th
Morelli, Mario F. "Fairness." Edited by George Lucas & John K. Roth. Ethics: Questions & Morality of Human Actions, 3rd Edition. Hackensack: Salem Press, 2019. Accessed October 22, 2025. online.salempress.com.