9. On Fairness:Equal opportunities and equal treatment

How do people determine whether something is fair? Almost everyone uses the same method: comparison. People judge fairness by comparing things to each other. Without a point of comparison, it's difficult to assess whether something is fair. For example, today the state enacted a new Citizen Relief Act. The new law stipulates that the government must provide relief funds to any citizen who suffers a fire. As for the specific amount of relief funds, the new law authorizes the government to decide based on actual circumstances. One month later, the first fire victim emerges—a citizen whose three houses in the village were destroyed. The government, following the law, decides to provide 300,000 yuan in relief funds. At this point, it's impossible to judge whether this amount is fair, as there's no clear point of comparison. Two months later, in the same village, another citizen's identical three houses are also destroyed by fire. The government must again provide relief funds. How much relief money should the government provide this time to be fair? The answer is undoubtedly 300,000 yuan. Why such certainty? Because people can easily judge fairness through comparison. If the government provides less than 300,000 yuan this time—regardless of the amount—people will inevitably perceive it as unfair.

Why do people instinctively judge fairness through comparison? Because fairness inherently involves two or more individuals. In a situation with only one person, fairness becomes irrelevant. If a utopian paradise contained only one inhabitant, that person would never conceive the concept of fairness—without direct interpersonal comparison, the notion of fairness cannot emerge. Thus, the concept of fairness arises from mutual comparison, and fairness itself is judged through mutual comparison.

Since people judge fairness through comparison, what exactly are they comparing? The outcomes? Or the opportunities?

If fairness were judged solely by comparing outcomes, the result would be widespread injustice. For instance, communism pursued equality of outcomes, yet those who championed this banner inflicted unprecedented catastrophes upon humanity. This demonstrates that blindly pursuing equality of outcomes is misguided.

Similarly, judging fairness solely by comparing opportunities would also yield unjust social outcomes. For instance, if courts adjudicated cases based on equal opportunity, trials would become unnecessary—parties could simply draw lots under judicial supervision to determine victory or defeat. While this method guarantees equal opportunity, the resulting social outcome could never be fair.

Therefore, assessing fairness requires neither comparing outcomes nor opportunities alone. Rather, it should be assessed through the lens of civic behavior. Within the public sphere, each citizen either actively pursues a goal or passively accepts an outcome.

When citizens actively pursue something—such as taking an exam, applying for a license, starting a business, or running for public office—equal opportunity is essential. In short, when citizens actively pursue a goal, they should have equal opportunity under identical conditions. Provided equal opportunity is guaranteed, the outcome is fair regardless of the result.

When citizens passively accept obligations, they require equal treatment. Examples include obeying laws, paying taxes, fulfilling military service, or undergoing trials. In short, when citizens face passive obligations, all must be treated equally without discrimination.

In conclusion, from the citizen's perspective, fairness means having equal opportunity and receiving equal treatment.