Justice, righteousness, fairness, and equality are basic concepts that have supporting significance in modern society. Because there are some similarities between these concepts, many people regard them as the same, and even use them in a mixed way in most circumstances. However, strictly speaking, the four concepts are different and carry different connotations. If we conflate them with one another, it may mislead the design of social institutions and the formulation of socio-economic policies to different degrees. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the similarities and differences between them.

1 The Nuances of Justice and Righteousness

The two concepts of “gongzheng” (公正, justice) and “zhengyi” (正义, righteousness) are basically synonymous, and both can be translated as “justice” in English. Both are also commonly used in most Chinese contexts according to the customary practice. It is recognized that justice and righteousness are two value goals of human society and are commonly pursued by people in different regions and in different times. This makes many people regard the two as the same, paying little attention to their nuances. People may feel that there is a difference between them from the perspective of language sense. For example, Mao Zedong says, “Our cause is righteous, and a righteous cause is unbreakable by any enemy” (Mao 1999). Obviously, the term “righteous” here cannot be replaced by “justice.” Even so, people are often unclear on what the exact difference is.

Although the two concepts are interchangeable in most circumstances, a closer examination reveals that there are some nuances between them in the Chinese context, and the scope of application is also somewhat different. In this respect, the Chinese is richer in meaning than the English, as “the confusion between the two concepts mostly occurs in the Chinese context because their Chinese expressions are different” (Xu 2010).

Specifically, the differences between the two concepts of “gongzheng” and “zhengyi” in Chinese context are as follows:

First, “zhengyi,” as a value of the highest level, is a purely deontic matter, while “gongzheng” is the “is - ought problem.” The latter arranges basic institutions of the actual society according to deontic values, integrating “the ideal” with “the actual.”

Relatively speaking, righteousness expresses the basic value orientation that society should have. It is a pure value, the orientation of the good, the moral high ground, the highest ideal goal of human society, and a “righteous path on earth.” As Confucius (551-479 BC) says, “How would you repay kindness? Repay a grudge with rectitude, and repay kindness with kindness.” The word “rectitude” here focuses on something “upright,” “reasonable,” and “proper.” Mencius (372-289 BC) says, “Righteousness is the right path for man.” Xunzi (300-230 BC) says, “Acting on the consideration of your own legitimate benefit is called business. Acting on the consideration of righteousness is called virtue.” Xunzi further explains what righteousness is from the opposite end: “If it is not righteous, then it is treacherous and evil.” In a sense, righteousness is a deontic matter that can be detached from the real world. Although some of Mencius and Dong Zhongshu’s remarks polarize “righteousness” and “profit,” they did illustrate the distance between righteousness and the actual society from another perspective. Objectively speaking, righteousness also has practical value. As human beings, we need to pursue ideal goals. It is through the pursuit of such a “pure” ideal goal that people can continuously improve the actual society.

Unlike righteousness’ emphasis on what ought to be, justice is based on righteousness to devise and arrange the basic social institutions, attempting to organically unify “the ideal” and “the actual,” so it focuses more on reality. Although there are distinctions between justice and righteousness, they are inseparable. For a society, institutions, especially normative, reasonable, and just institutions, are crucial and indispensable. “Institutions are the rules of the game in a society or, more formally, are the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction. In consequence they structure incentives in human exchange, whether political, social, or economic” (North 1990). The design of reasonable, fair, and practical institutions must be based on a certain idea, which is justice. As John Rawls says, “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought” (Rawls 1999). Thus, the actual cannot be separated from the ideal, and justice is the unity of righteousness and profit—the “is-ought” unity—and the combination of the actual and the ideal. Rawls also points out: “For us the primary subject of justice is the basic structure of society, or more exactly, the way in which the major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation. By major institutions I understand the political constitution and the principal economic and social arrangements” (Rawls 1999). The term “justice” Rawls uses here is equivalent to “gongzheng” in Chinese. It is precisely because justice takes on a practical nature that the realization of it should consider how to integrate ideals into reality, the feasibility of institutional design and arrangements, and the common recognition, coordination, and even compromise of all social groups in the institutional arrangements.

From the above, it can be seen that, in the Chinese context, “zhengyi” (righteousness) focuses on philosophical values, while “gongzheng” (justice) focuses on social institutions (social institutions in a broad sense).

Other distinctions between the two concepts in the Chinese context are further derived from the above.

Second, the contents of righteousness are transhistorical and relatively constant, while the contents of justice will change as the times change.

As an ideal and motivational orientation, righteousness has some relatively constant characteristics that transcend specific historical stages. As one scholar says: “Righteousness manifests itself as conceptualized ideas and values, being oriented toward the ultimate goal of mankind. It is constructed in reality and transcends reality” (Xu 2010). No matter what era of society, there are always many similar themes. People have made similar and relatively consistent efforts on these themes. For example, people in ancient China attached great importance to the harmony between man and nature. Although their specific practices at a particular time in history hardly seem scientific and feasible now, their attitudes and efforts are worth learning from for later generations (Wu 1992). The same is true of righteousness. In ancient Chinese, leaders of peasant uprisings advocated for slogans such as “equalize the noble and humble; same share between rich and poor,” which reflected the constant pursuit of righteousness at a certain stage of history and the people’s struggle against social injustice under the feudal autocracy. Although it is impossible for us to copy the specific contents of the ancient people’s pursuit, as a value and concept that transcends the times and as a direction of effort, a behavior orientation, and a pursuit, righteousness has a certain relative constancy that transcends the times and is still worthy of recognition and reference in today’s society.

In contrast, justice is closer to reality, so its specific contents will inevitably change with the change of time. In other words, these contents will be progressive and updated. For example, today’s people recognize the ancients’ pursuit of righteousness, such as ancient Greek philosophers, but they do not necessarily agree with their interpretation of justice. The rationale is simple, because people in every era always achieve justice under certain historical conditions. As the times change, the people’s ideas and understanding also broaden, and their abilities to achieve justice also become greater. Therefore, different times will endow justice with different contents. In other words, the specific contents of justice will update and develop with the development of the times. People in traditional and modern society will have different understandings of justice and their abilities to realize justice will also vary. However, different endeavors to justice can all be carried out in the name of pursuing righteousness. Traditional society emphasized itself as a whole as well as the dependence of the people, so justice in such a society means order, an orderly society, and the “benevolent governance” of the rulers. For example, Plato believed that justice is a reasonable division of labor and order. “The ability of the commercial, auxiliary, and guardian classes to mind their own business, with each of them performing its own function in the city – this will be justice, and will make the city just” (Plato 2003). Whereas in modern society, the contents of justice have been updated and carry new connotations. Justice in the modern sense emphasizes the extreme importance of individuals, the social association based on independent individuals and free people, the compatibility with the market economy, the encouragement of everyone’s free space and free development, the legitimacy of everyone’s pursuit of reasonable interests, and the fact that no one can harm the reasonable interests of others while pursuing their own interests.

Third, righteousness is something that few people can do, while justice is something that most people can follow.

In general, only a minority, rather than a majority, can devote themselves to righteousness and are willing to give everything for it. According to Confucius and Mencius, righteousness is essential for a person of virtue. They set a high standard of “righteousness,” which is difficult for ordinary people to achieve. Therefore, only a few members of society can meet this high standard. Under normal circumstances, most people cannot meet such standards and cannot devote their lives to the cause of righteousness. What they care about is their daily life, and what they are interested in is their immediate interests because profits come first. As Marx states, “Everything people strive for is related to their interests” (Marx and Engels 1956). Because of this, in any “normal” society, only a few people can reach high standards such as “people with lofty ideals” and “heroic models.” These people sacrifice their lives for justice in order to safeguard the long-term interests of most ordinary people and improve their daily lives.

In contrast, most members of society can consciously and voluntarily identify with justice and follow just rules and institutions. Justice involves the design and arrangement of basic social institutions, which is indispensable to the daily life and career of most people. In modern society, with the increase of risks and uncertain factors, people’s increasing expectations of lives, more space for people’s freedom and differentiated activities, and more emphasis that people place on their independence, equality, freedom, security, and development, most people increasingly rely on fair rules and institutions. Justice in the modern sense aims to create a “good” institutional system based on the value orientation of justice. This “good” institutional system can enable people to contribute what they can and occupy the position that they deserve, thus further forming a dynamic and orderly social situation in which there is rational division of labor so that the people can work according to the regulations and cooperate effectively. Clearly, just rules and institutions can provide a reasonable, safe, and predictable environment for most people, one that will be recognized and followed by these people.

2 Distinctions Between Justice and Fairness

Because the two concepts are somewhat similar, many theorists use them alternately in most circumstances and regard them as the same. Sometimes people intuitively feel that there are differences between the two. For example, the term “fairness, justice, and openness” actually distinguishes between justice and fairness. However, the explanations of their meanings are often vague.

Strictly speaking, there is a difference between the two concepts. They can be defined in both broad and narrow terms. Broadly speaking, the two terms are frequently used, have similar meanings, and are interchangeable. However, the two terms in a broad sense are not suitable for formal occasions. While in the narrow sense—that is, in the strict sense—the two concepts have their own definite meanings, there are some obvious distinctions between them.

First, justice is a significant “value orientation,” one that focuses on the “basic value orientation” of society and emphasizes the legitimacy of this value. Fairness, on the other hand, is more “instrumental,” emphasizing the “same scale” of measurement standards to prevent the problem of double (or multiple) standards in social treatment. This is the most important difference between the two.

In the realm of social life, the difference between justice and fairness is obvious. For example, what the “financial tycoon” Soros did in the financial market of Southeast Asia a few years ago is a typical practice of following the “fair” rules of the game, but is indeed against the requirements of justice. Because of the lack of basic value orientations of justice, Soros directly caused the economic disaster in Southeast Asia through the “fair” rules of the game. In another example, let us assume that several people stole $10 worth of property, and they committed the same exact “crimes.” After they were caught, some were sentenced to five years of imprisonment, some were sentenced to 20 days of detention, and others were acquitted. This practice is clearly unfair because it violates the rule of equal treatment. However, if they were all sentenced to five years of imprisonment, then it could be argued that this treatment is relatively fair, but, on the other hand, it is obviously too heavy a sentence and goes against the principle of justice. These two examples reveal that justice and fairness are not the same.

Rawls’ famous proposition of “justice as fairness” also illustrates the difference between justice and fairness. In order to develop a real, unbiased idea of social justice that is not influenced by any group interests, Rawls assumes that the parities are situated behind a “veil of ignorance.” “It is assumed, then, that the parties do not know certain kinds of particular facts. First of all, no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like. Nor, again, does anyone know his conception of the good, the particulars of his rational plan of life, or even the special features of his psychology… More than this, I assume that the parties do not know the particular circum-stances of their own society. That is, they do not know its economic or political situation, or the level of civilization and culture it has been able to achieve.” In this way, Rawls tries to “set up a fair procedure so that any principles agreed to will be just” (Rawls 1999). The resulting idea is “justice as fairness.”

Although Rawls sometimes conflates fairness and justice, in his arguments and expositions, he still clarifies their respective functions and positions. Rawls uses the “veil of ignorance” as a “fair procedure” to produce the concrete contents of justice, which shows that as an instrumental or technical method, fairness is very effective. His “veil of ignorance” aims to minimize people’s personal preferences and prejudices in determining their basic value orientation while taking a value-free attitude. Rawls mainly used the idea of fairness in this sense. Although the “veil of ignorance” does not exist in actual society, this “fair” practice can play a role in limiting each “self,” so that the specific contents of justice are formed objectively and in a true state, making the values of justice that finally emerge more acceptable to the people. This practice also shows that fairness serves justice, and it should be subordinate to justice.

From the above, we can see, first, that the functional orientation of the two is different. Justice emphasizes the legitimacy of value orientation; it not only stresses whether the current situation and result meet the requirements or rules of justice, it also should pay attention to the procedural fairness that has caused this situation and result in order to ensure justice. One of the most important contents of procedural fairness is that the “same standard” should be followed—that is, the fair criterion—so as to prevent some groups from satisfying their own self-interests by double or multiple standards and at the same time harming other groups, thus creating an unjust social state. Because of this, justice must include fairness. Generally speaking, what is just must be fair, but what is fair does not necessarily have to be just. Compared with justice, fairness is much simpler. Fairness emphasizes objectivity and is value-neutral and instrumental. In a certain sense, it is only a matter of the operational level, although this level is sometimes of great significance. Fairness only requires people to follow the rule of “the same standard,” so what is fair sometimes is not necessarily just. Second, the basic value of justice determines the positive significance of fairness. If there is no basic value of justice, there will be no true fairness—that is, fairness in the positive sense—and the rest may be just “fair” rules of the game. Such rules only have a neutral meaning, which only refer to equal treatment under the same rules of the game. As for what the basis of such rules is and what social effects they may produce, it is often not the concern of the parties, but varies depending on specific people and events. Once society loses its basic value of justice, individuals or groups with various intentions may use fair rules as an excuse to adopt practices that are beneficial to themselves but detrimental to others. Therefore, sometimes such “fair” rules of the game will have a negative impact to the society.

Second, justice in the real sense can only be realized in modern society, while in traditional society, there is the possibility of fairness to a certain extent and within a certain scope.

Rawls precisely analyzed the basic purpose and function of justice and righteousness. He argues: “The primary subject of justice is the basic structure of society, or more exactly, the way in which the major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation… The justice of a social scheme depends essentially on how fundamental rights and duties are assigned and on the economic opportunities and social conditions in the various sectors of society… Justice is the first virtue of social institutions… Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many” (Rawls 1999). Obviously, the basic purpose and function of justice and righteousness can only exist in modern society.

In traditional society, it is possible to achieve the most elementary justice in some sectors; for example, from the utilitarian point of view, for the continuation of “species” (the life of society), rulers should try their best to prevent large-scale famine from occurring. However, this is only a biological, primitive, and very elementary “justice,” not justice in its real meaning. Generally speaking, in traditional society, justice was unlikely to exist. Traditional society was based on a special social group (such as the royal family), and due to its extreme scarcity of resources, it could only be a “dehumanized” society that opposed both equality and freedom and had a social hierarchy of hereditary monarchy. In such a society, the people’s basic dignity and rights could be trampled and damaged at will for the selfish interests of one family or clan. As Marx points out: “Despotism brutality is a necessity and humanity an impossibility. A brutal relationship can only be maintained by means of brutality” (Marx and Engels 1956). Under such circumstances, justice and righteousness became impossible. There were some demands for equality at the time, but mostly under egalitarian ideas. Such ideas lacked the theoretical basis of true equality and freedom and not to mention a realistic basis, so it could not become justice in the real sense.

Only in modern society can justice in the true sense be realized. In modern society, due to the great abundance of material wealth, the improvement of the market economy, and the concepts of equality, freedom, and social cooperation as primary values in society, society is built around people and becomes humanized. In modern society, sharing and universality are the basic social value orientations, and the dignity and rights of countless individuals are the basis of institutional arrangements. In this context, the basic goals of justice and righteousness will be realized across society through reasonable institutional design and the systematic implementation of economic and social policies. These existing facts reveal that, in a sound modern society, the requirements and rules of justice (the guarantee of basic human dignity and rights, equality of opportunity, distribution according to contribution, and social adjustment) can be realized on the whole.

Although justice could not be achieved in traditional society, fairness could be practiced to a certain extent (sometimes even to a large extent) and within a certain range (sometimes even within a larger range). The rationale for this is: as long as a society needs to function smoothly, it needs to devise rules for people and social groups to follow. If the rules are to be accepted by the majority, they should be fair. Therefore, even under the autocratic system of traditional society, some fair rules were still needed. Although the relevant results did not necessarily meet the requirements of justice, and in most cases their degree of fairness is limited (the restrictive fair rules generally did not apply to monarchs and royal families), these fair rules that were neutral and instrumental did play a role in maintaining social order. For example, the rule of “life for life” is applicable to most members of society, and even members of the upper class had to follow it. For another example, the imperial examination system in traditional Chinese society, to a large extent, recruited officials based on the candidates’ test scores, regardless of their family background; it cannot be denied that such practice is obviously fair.

Third, justice is more idealistic, while fairness contains more practical elements.

Since justice focuses on basic social values and institutions, it is sometimes far removed from the people’s daily life. In order to realize justice, we need to rely on fairness as an effective and instrumental way. First, in real social life, fairness can make necessary corrections to some improper “just” behaviors. As Aristotle points out: “When the thing is indefinite the rule also is indefinite… for the fair, though it is better than one kind of justice, yet is just, and it is not as being a different class of thing that it is better than the just. The same thing, then, is just and fair, and while both are good the fair is superior. What creates the problem is that the fair is just, but not the legally just but a correction of legal justice” (Aristotle 1990a). Second, when geared toward justice, fairness can deal with some specific things in a flexible way. On the surface, it seems that some “just” rule can be directly used to deal with these things. However, due to the complexity of real social life, these things are highly correlated with many other things that have different properties, which makes these specific things deserve another kind of “treatment.” As Marx states, “Although they are extremely similar things, appearing in different historical circumstances caused completely different results” (Marx and Engels 1963). Therefore, these kinds of “similar” things should be treated fairly and flexibly based on justice. Likewise, sometimes the same can be done for some opposite things of another kind.

3 Distinctions Between Justice and Equality

Equality and justice are important values that people have been pursuing for a long time, and they are indispensable ideological pillars of modern society. The two concepts are similar in many aspects. This is reflected not only in the fact that equality is an important basis for justice, but also in the fact that the contents of these two concepts overlap and are repetitive in many aspects; that is, they are consistent in some specific contents. Because of the high correlation between these two concepts, many people mistake them for the same thing, so they often use equality and justice interchangeably. Aristotle sometimes used justice and equality interchangeably as the same concept. When discussing “equality according to worth,” Aristotle says: “Since justice is equality, equality according to worth should be just… For example, those who own more pay more taxes, and those who own less pay less taxes. This is equal by proportion. Moreover, those who work more get more, and those who work less get less. This is equal by proportion” (Aristotle 1990b). Even in contemporary times, many people regard justice and equality as the same. Huntington’s Goals of Development and Arthur Okun’s Equality and Efficiency all reflect this situation.

In actuality, justice and equality are two different concepts, and the difference is much bigger than that between justice and fairness.

First, equality may become “excessive,” but justice will never be. Therefore, reasonable equality is just.

Equality is an extremely important value in modern society. Although many people have been pursuing equality since the ancient times, as a modern concept, it came into being on the basis of opposing the prior privilege and hierarchy of traditional society, and it was formed and improved along with modernization and the market economy. The concept of equality in the modern sense is the confirmation of the individual’s independent personality and subjectivity, and its formation is a historical progress. Since society is composed of countless individuals, the basic contribution of each individual is both indispensable and equal. The affirmation of individuals’ fundamental contributions and human dignity should take on a concrete form. If individuals are not entitled to the same basic rights, their survival cannot be guaranteed, their dignity cannot be preserved, and equality will lose its practical significance. In this regard, the basic rights of individuals are in line with natural law.

Although the idea of equality is crucial, we should note that it is not the only core value in modern society. Equality must be combined with values such as freedom and social cooperation, so that its positive function can be exerted. This is because everyone is not only born equal, but also born different. People are different in native endowments such as ability, psychology, and development prospects. At the same time, equal individuals must effectively cooperate in society, or it will be difficult for that society to function and develop smoothly. Thus, the three concepts of equality, freedom, and social cooperation complement each other and are indispensable, which together constitute the conceptual basis of justice in the modern sense. Marx said that the ideal goal of society is “the association of free people,” and the free people in the association should not only be free but also be equal, and at the same time, they must unite and cooperate in society.

The problem is that the three ideas should be considered as a coordinated one. Overemphasizing any of them will undermine the other two, thus causing harmful effects on society. Just as excessive freedom damages the social order indispensable to the normal operation of a society, excessive equality will also damage the social order, weaken social vitality, and reduce social efficiency. In particular, excessive equality will directly damage freedom. “Equality can either be the best complement of freedom or its worst enemy. The relationship between equality and freedom is a love-hate relationship, depending on whether we demand an equality that suits diversity or an equality that sees inequality in every diversity. And, certainly, the more equality is sameness, the more an equality so conceived feeds a distaste for variety, self-assertion and eminence, and thereby, in the final analysis, for freedom” (Sartori 1987). Therefore, equality requires necessary restrictions or balance, which can only come from justice. In this sense, equality is subordinate to justice. “Out of liberty, equality and justice, only justice is an unlimited good…no society can be too just…When justice thus regulates the pursuit of liberty and equality, both can be maximized harmoniously within the limits set. The irresolvable conflict between the erroneous extremism of the libertarian and the erroneous extremism of the egalitarian vanishes. The sovereignty of justice has corrected the errors and resolved the conflict” (Adler 1984).

Second, the scope of justice is much broader than that of equality. Because the connotation of justice includes equality, freedom, and social cooperation, in actual social life, justice involves institutions, norms, rules and policies, etc. In this sense, justice is a systematic collection. In contrast, equality is only an attribute and a level in this collection, although this attribute or level is very important.

Third, the idea of justice tends to identify with the actual society, while equality tends to contradict society.

Although justice is a basic value, because it is the most important basis for institutions and policies of modern society, the concept of justice is closely related to the actual society (though less practical compared to fairness). The conditions of modernization and the market economy mean that if a society is not in a state of turmoil and disintegration, then justice often recognizes the basic norms, institutions, and order of this “normal” society. Therefore, there may be imperfections such as inequality in such a society, but justice is adaptable to reality. The idea of justice is so closely related to the actual society that, back in ancient times, scholars believed that law-abiding is justice. Socrates “thought that unwillingness to do injustice was sufficient proof of Justice… what is lawful is just” (Bao 1996). Aristotle also says: “The law-abiding man and the fair man will both be just… and ‘the unjust’ means that which is illegal and that which is unequal or unfair… what is lawful is decided by legislature… Now all the various pronouncements of the law aim either at the common interest of all, or at the interest of a ruling class determined either by excellence or in some other similar way… But the law also prescribes certain conduct” (Aristotle 1990a). Socrates and Aristotle’s statements are not accurate enough because they reduce the value of justice and raise the legal status of their country. However, both show from one side that the idea of justice is closely related to the actual society. The more civilized and modern a society is, the more obvious this point is. In many developed countries, the social policy, which is the direct embodiment of justice, is closely related to and across society. In these countries, justice has penetrated into almost all levels of social life through systematic social policies. For example, the idea of justice can be found in Nordic countries through comprehensive social policies, protecting the majority of people across the circle of life from cradle to grave.

Things are different with equality. Equality is more of an ideal that can provide people with multiple explanations. For many social classes, especially intellectual groups, equality provides an imaginary space that can be almost freely developed and designed according to their wonderful goals. Therefore, most members of society are more likely to agree with equality, the eternal and beautiful pursuit of human society. However, we should note that the idea of equality is easily divorced from practical institutional design and policy arrangement to a great extent. The pursuit of equality can often ignore feasibility and operability. Sometimes people neglect freedom and social cooperation when discussing equality. They develop the idea of equality “freely and independently,” without other ideas to check and balance and without considering variables in reality, making it more likely to form an overly idealistic and purely spiritual pursuit. However, in the face of this “idealized” equality, the basic order of the actual society, which contains many unsatisfactory elements, is not easily recognized, thus causing conflict between equality and justice. Even Arthur Okun, who highly values equality, says: “The distribution of rights stresses equality even at the expense of equality and freedom. When people differ in capabilities, interests, and preferences, identical treatment is not equitable treatment, at least by some standards” (Okun 1975). This kind of disharmony or even conflict sometimes leads to a fierce attack and criticism of the concept of equality on the actual society, and such attack and criticism is almost endless.

4 Enlightenment

As the concept of justice is the most important basis for institutional design and policy formulation in modern society, clarifying their different meanings, applicable scopes, and different functions can help people avoid confusing and misusing them, especially the misleading effect caused by replacing justice with fairness or equality, and thus reduce the mistakes in devising institutions and formulating policies in modern society.

First, avoid the misleading effect of replacing justice with fairness.

As mentioned earlier, the concept of fairness focuses on “same scale” and “same treatment” to prevent the differential treatment of double or multiple standards. The concept itself does not have obvious value orientation, but emphasizes objectivity and is neutral and instrumental. Therefore, if a society lacks proper value orientation in a certain period, then emphasizing fairness at this time will undoubtedly encourage the spontaneous behavior of this society. In a market economy, if justice is not regarded as a basic value and functions as fairness, then fairness at this time can easily be subordinated to practice that is oriented toward the market economy, thus increasing the inherent defects of the market economy. For example, it will widen the income gap between members of society. In the market economy, the mere emphasis on the fair, same scale and treatment cannot guarantee the true fairness of people in the starting point and process of competition. In this sense, the “fair” market economic criterion is beneficial to those with greater ability, abundant capital, and superior family background, while it is very unfavorable to the those without. This situation reflects more of a “competence-based” advantage. In the short term, this may result in an efficient society. However, such a society goes against the principle of social development that everyone should be able to share and equally benefit, and its economic efficiency is healthy but morbid and unsustainable. Moreover, in the long run, the disparities that exist between people in the wealth distribution are bound to widen, and the safe operation and healthy development of society will be deeply affected. If a society’s development only benefits a few people but most suffer, then it has not achieved real development. That society would be a morbid society, not a healthy one.

Obviously, only by taking justice rather than fairness as the basic value orientation of socio-economic development can we effectively prevent the inherent defects of the market economy. Only by following the four rules of justice (the rules of guaranteeing the safety net for and basic dignity of members of society, equal opportunities, distribution according to contribution, and social adjustment) can the inherent defects of the market economy be eliminated, and the positive effects be maximized. In this case, the society will be full of vitality and maintain stable operations and a healthy development, and thus its overall quality will continuously improve.

We should also note that, in reality, people confuse fairness with justice, which has obvious drawbacks. Making justice a matter of everyday life may lower the level of the idea of justice and thus create a misunderstanding, or at least an inaccurate understanding, of issues related to justice. What people often talk about as fairness and efficiency is really a matter of justice and efficiency. Because people often use the term fairness to replace justice, some unnecessary arguments arise. For example, when studying the relationship between fairness and efficiency, many people argue that we should give priority to efficiency with due consideration to fairness, while others hold a different view. Fairness in this case should be justice. If we replace “fairness” with “justice,” then people may easily understand the relationship between the two, and similar arguments will be significantly reduced.

Second, to prevent the negative social effects caused by replacing justice with equality.

Although equality is a basic value of modern society and a basis of justice in the modern sense, if it goes beyond its specific scope of application and takes the place of justice as the most basic value orientation of modern society, then it will inevitably have many negative effects on society. (1) The concept of equality easily falls into the situation of over-criticism and under-construction. The idea of equality has many ideal components, which can provide people with various spaces to develop and explain, but it is difficult to reach a consensus. At the same time, the concept of equality is not very feasible. As a result, the concept is a very powerful and effective tool for attacking and criticizing various unfair and unequal phenomena in reality, but the role of the concept is relatively limited in terms of solutions to these problems. (2) If there are no necessary restrictions and limitations, the idea of equality will sometimes encourage egalitarianism. Equality is only a single modern concept, which must be combined with the concepts of freedom and social cooperation to have complete significance. In fact, based on the idea of equality, people sometimes pay special attention to the “identity” and “similarity” of people’s situations or final state, that is, “two or more persons or objects can be declared equal in the sense of being – in some or all respects – identical, of being the same, alike” (Sartori 1987). Therefore, if equality is based on this “identity” to arrange social institutions and formulate socio-economic policies, it will evolve into egalitarianism to varying degrees, and many just rules, such as the rules of distribution according to contribution, will be denied, which will suppress the interests of members of society and then society will lose its vitality. (3) The abuse of equality sometimes leads to the situation where most people damage the reasonable rights and interests of the “minority” in the name of society as a whole. Modern society should be people-oriented. There is nothing wrong with this view; however, this statement is somewhat general—to be exact, society should be based on countless individuals. If everything is done in the context of society as a whole, it will lead to absolute egalitarianism as society treats all of its members in a single way. In the name of equality, then, another form of “tyranny” can easily emerge, in which the majority undermines the legitimate rights of the minority and suppresses the freedom of the individual. For example, during the French Revolution, absolute equality led to absolute democracy, which in turn led to a “democratic dictatorship” in which the majority could make arbitrary and random decisions about the fate of the minority. A similar situation occurred in China during the Cultural Revolution. It can be seen that, in the name of distorted equality and democracy, an extreme injustice can also be created.

The above possible drawbacks of the concept of equality can be prevented by justice. Compared to equality, justice is more practical and feasible, and thus it can be a reasonable basis for institutional design and policy formulation in modern society. Justice not only recognizes that all people are born the same, but also advocates that the basic dignity and rights of every member of society should be guaranteed. It also recognizes the fact that all people are born different, the space for individual people to develop freely, and the reasonable gap in income among people. Therefore, justice can organically combine the prevention of the excessive gap between the rich and poor with the prevention of egalitarianism. Under the guidance of the concept of justice in the true modern sense, the relationship between the individual and the whole society can be reasonably and effectively coordinated, and the situation that one party damages the other party due to excessive expansion can be prevented.

Third, fairness and equality should be subject to justice.

Undoubtedly, justice, fairness, and equality are extremely important and supportive concepts in modern society. In terms of devising and arranging the basic institutions of modern society, it is more accurate and appropriate to take justice as its basic value orientation. Justice is the most basic conceptual basis for the operation and development of modern society. Compared with the practice that fairness emphasizes objectivity and the same scale, justice is a basic value orientation for society, so it can be effectively positioned to make it have a positive effect on the society. Compared with equality’s emphasis on the maintenance and unremitting pursuit of people’s basic dignity and rights, justice pays more attention to proper and reasonable value orientation. It considers not only the value of equality, but also the reasonable values of freedom and social cooperation. Therefore, it can form an effective balancing effect on equality and make it play its proper role. In summary, in terms of the relationship among the three, justice already contains the essence of fairness and equality and has been newly integrated with the essence of other important values, and thus it occupies a dominant position. Fairness and equality can play its due role effectively and avoid the possibility of deviation only by taking justice as the core and relying on it.