Like my post on ‘Tolerance vs. Acceptance,’ this is another post where it is necessary to read carefully and think through the point(s) I am trying to make because, as in the other post, we are dealing with a force that is actively trying to change society by manipulating language. The concept is easy: if you can control the language, you can control what and how people think. Do not doubt that this is the thinking behind the confusion in our language today. I can show you the people who said that this is exactly what they wanted to do and how they intended to do it: to direct human evolution by manipulating the language. And those people are the founders of what we now call the Liberal/Progressive movement. They are largely responsible for many of today believing that ‘justice’ and ‘fairness’ are the same thing. They are not, and we need to understand the difference between the two concepts these words represent.
As usual in this series, we start with the definition of ‘justice:’
Full Definition of JUSTICE
And the definition of ‘fairness:’
Full Definition of FAIR
Now, if we were to take these definitions at face value, then I would not argue that ‘justice’ could be thought of as ‘fairness,’ but our society does not use these definitions when it thinks of ‘justice’ and ‘fairness.’ If we would uphold the rights of all parties in a legal action, then that would be fair. But we no longer do this. Today, we accept the claim that certain people have more of a claim to certain rights than others, and it is often based on factors of race and/or socioeconomic condition. Going back to the definition of ‘fair,’ we will notice that it is supposed to mean impartiality, lacking prejudice or favoritism. But, when we favor a certain person or group based on factors that are outside the law, and we use them in the application of the law, then that is neither ‘fair’ nor ‘just.’
From my personal copy of “The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology: The Origins of the American English Words:”
Fair — developed from the Old English word, fæger, it originally meant beautiful or pleasing to behold or having a light complexion. But another early meaning was free from moral stain, unblemished, and from this evolved the notion of being free from bias.
There is the key to the perversion between these two concepts: the connection to a sense of morality. Today, we are being told that morality dictates that society show a bias toward people based on group identity. We are told that minorities (mainly blacks, but also Mexicans) are disadvantaged based on the history of slavery and racism in this nation, and that it is only ‘fair’ that they be given special consideration to make up for past wrongs. But this conflicts with the notion of ‘justice,’ which demands an impartial application of the law regardless of the past. So the meaning of the two words has been intentionally confused. This is because the people confusing their meaning honestly believe that words control what and how we think, and if they can confuse the meaning of these words in your mind, you will not be able to figure out what they are doing.
Now let’s look at this from the definition of ‘justice.’ It is true that there are many laws on our books that are not ‘fair.’ I do not mean they are not ‘fair’ by society’s understanding of ‘fair,’ but they are not ‘fair’ by the definition of the word. Any law that shows favoritism toward people of one group over another bestows special rights on that favored group. But look at the definition of ‘justice.’ It means “the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity.” So, if I pass a law that favors a minority or minority owned business (i.e. affirmative action laws), then I am granting members of that minority group rights that the rest of society do not have and cannot claim. By definition, this is not ‘fair,’ but it is ‘justice’ when an ‘unfair’ (i.e. immoral) law is properly enforced. So, if the affirmative action laws are faithfully enforced, then that is ‘justice,’ but — by definition — it is not ‘fair.’
But then, weren’t we told affirmative action laws were passed to make things fair; to make up for past wrongs? Do you see the intentional perversion of our language yet? If not, then I will do you one better. If you show favoritism toward a group of people based on their skin color, that is a bias, or favorable prejudice, but when you not only show favoritism based on skin color but you also build that favoritism into the law, then — by definition — that is racism! That means, in the name of ‘fairness,’ and for the expressed intention of making up for racism in America’s past, we have established racism in the other direction. Now I ask you, where is the ‘fairness’ or the ‘justice’ in that? And it is not just in matters of race that we are passing such laws. You’ll find them all throughout our nation’s legal code. You’ll also find this principle in action in our schools, company charters, and the structures of our social institutions — even the Boy and Girl Scouts have been affected.
“Justice’ and ‘fairness’ can mean the same things, but in our society today, they usually don’t. Today, the meaning of these words has been intentionally perverted for the purpose of confusing our moral compass. This is what is at the heart of most attacks on our language: an attempt to undermine the eternal and universal laws of morality. You see, just as the Constitution must be destroyed before America can be ‘remade,’ morality must be destroyed before the evolution of humanity can be ‘directed.’ At least, this is what the people doing this have told each other they are doing, but they are wrong — they just don’t know it. What they are really doing is claiming the seat of God.
Before the evolution of humanity can be directed by man, the laws that govern human evolution (human nature) must be changed. The problem with this is, no one can change a law except for the law-giver(s). Since morality is universal and eternal, it demands there is a Law Giver over the entire universe (i.e. a Creator), which then means that anyone claiming they can change the laws governing human nature is claiming to be God. This is exactly what we are dealing with here: people who are trying to re-write the Creator’s Natural Law.
Now let me ask you a question that gets to the heart of answering an objection made by many skeptics. How many eons does the Creator of the universe have to give mankind before He would be ‘fair’ in calling man to account for his crimes? And given that man has repeatedly broken His laws and tried to assume His authority, wouldn’t it be ‘justice’ if God were to ‘fairly’ enforce the penalty for breaking His laws? I hear skeptics accuse God of being ‘unfair’ and ‘unjust’ all the time, but, given what we just discussed, I’d have to say God is ‘fair’ beyond human capacity. What’s more, if we suffer some consequence because we have insisted on violating His laws, then God is only upholding ‘justice’ when He allows us to suffer the penalties of our own actions. By my reasoning, this is perfect ‘fairness’ and perfect ‘justice.’ If only we could just try to imitate His example, maybe we would finally be able to start down the road that would actually heal our land.