The word fair or equal or impartial is a good word to hear and can be used as a hope to destroy the seekers. A word that is always exhaled at every given moment to lure and bind each other until he is lulled by it. The word fair itself has the meaning of unbiased, impartial, and equally heavy.
It is true, seeking justice is like seeking gold in the bowels of the earth. Borrowing John Rawls's sentence in The Theory of Justice " Justice is a major virtue in social institutions, as is truth in the system of thought. A theory, however elegant and economical, must be rejected or revised if it is not true, nor should laws and institutions, no matter how efficient and tidy, be reformed or abolished if it is not fair". Everyone who walks on top of the world is an entity that has the same right to justice.
Justice does not allow the sacrifices imposed on a handful of people to be exacerbated by most of the gains gained by others. Justice expects a mutual consensus between one person and another, one organization with another. With the decision and understanding to decide an issue, it is expected that each person and individual can get a solution to justice.
In the framework of today's constitutional democracy, a more rational and pluralistic society does not preclude arriving at an agreement on justice, since everyone is preoccupied by an ethical desire to avoid the possibility of being harmed by a social arrangement. That is why everyone wants to be protected by the same principle of justice. Therefore, a person who participates in the social covenant still rests on his primary position as the owner of basic rights. Precisely because of the primary position of the individual basic rights, it is a principle of social justice that guarantees equality and benefits for those who are left behind, becoming the priority of a democratic society
To understand the notion of justice, the author will borrow John Rawls's thoughts on justice. In his mind justice is a free, rational and democratic consensus. The essence of John Rawls's thinking lies in his understanding of justice as fairness. The three main things could be Rawls' thinking. First, Rawls, understands justice as the business of all citizens. A theory of good justice is a theory of fairness that is contractual that guarantees the interests of all parties fairly. With contractual justice Rawls would like to say that all members of the public have the right to determine the understanding, circumstances, and conditions of justice and what efforts should be made to realize and maintain fair justice.
With contractual fairness Rawls would like to say that every individual and member of the public has the right to determine the understanding, circumstances and conditions of justice and what efforts should be made to realize and maintain fair justice. With that understanding Rawls also put the individual as a free person and have a sense of mind.
Second, justice as fairness, can be realized if through the stage of communication that is free, rational and democratic. Therefore, there is communication involved in making a decision that is fair in nature. All elements in the discussion put themselves in their default position. It was in this default position that the participants of the discussion took off all their clothes whether it was about personal or class interests, both thought and science. And by not bringing thoughts about justice in this discussion can be decided a decision fairly.
"All parties who are in the default position must also be in a state without knowledge' apart from interests of a personal and unique nature. Their goal is that the principles of justice produced must be the best principles that truly matter to all citizens".
Third, the concept of social and economic inequality is interesting to listen to. Free and rational human beings turn out to have different abilities. This causes social and economic differences in society. Is this situation an injustice? No, because people have different talents.
We can only be said to be unfair if we rob the rich and rich in order to help the poor. These social and economic differences are natural in social life to the extent that opportunities are adequately provided. Thus unfair is not to be fair to the weak at the expense of the rich, or vice versa, but to limit the opportunity to try only for the sake of a certain group in society, regardless of the name of the group.
Continued.....
0 Comments