Substantive judgements of fairness are assessments of fairness that are based on the outcomes or allocations of resources, goods, or services, rather than the procedures used to arrive at those outcomes. These judgements often arise when people hold differing views about what constitutes a fair distribution.
Understanding Substantive Fairness
Essentially, substantive fairness considers what people receive. It contrasts with procedural fairness, which focuses on how decisions are made. A process might be considered fair (procedural fairness), but the resulting distribution could still be seen as unfair (substantive fairness).
Key Characteristics of Substantive Judgements:
-
Focus on Outcomes: The primary concern is the result of a decision or allocation, not the process leading to it.
-
Subjectivity: What constitutes a "fair" outcome is often subjective and depends on individual values, beliefs, and perspectives.
-
Differing Conceptions of Fairness: Disagreements about substantive fairness often stem from different ideas about distributive justice, such as:
- Equality: Everyone receives the same share.
- Equity: Resources are distributed based on need or merit.
- Proportionality: Distribution is based on contribution.
- Need: Those with the greatest needs receive the most.
-
Potential for Conflict: Because of the inherent subjectivity and varied perspectives, substantive judgements can lead to conflicts and disagreements.
Examples of Substantive Judgements of Fairness:
- Taxation: Disagreements about whether the tax system is fair. Some might argue for a progressive tax system (equity), while others might favor a flat tax (equality).
- Resource Allocation in Healthcare: Deciding who receives a scarce organ transplant. Arguments might be based on factors such as age, health status, or likelihood of survival.
- Salary Determination: Employees comparing their salaries and feeling unfairly compensated compared to others in similar roles. They might consider experience, education, or performance.
- Affirmative Action: Policies designed to promote equal opportunity for underrepresented groups. Some view them as fair (equity), while others see them as unfair (equality).
The Interplay of Procedural and Substantive Fairness
While distinct, procedural and substantive fairness are often intertwined. A procedurally fair process can sometimes increase the acceptance of an outcome, even if it is not viewed as substantively ideal. Conversely, a perceived substantively unfair outcome can undermine trust in the entire system, regardless of the procedural fairness.
In conclusion, substantive judgements of fairness highlight the complexities of distributive justice and the challenges of achieving consensus on what constitutes a fair allocation in any given situation. It is important to consider both procedural and substantive fairness in order to create systems that are perceived as just and equitable.
