Skip to content

Cultural Fairness Frameworks

View Fullscreen

About This MicroSim

This interactive matrix compares how six major cultural and philosophical traditions conceptualize fairness across five key dimensions. Click any cell to see detailed explanations, real-world examples, and key thinkers associated with that perspective.

Cultural Traditions Compared

Tradition Core Concept Key Figures
Western Liberal Individual rights, procedural justice Rawls, Locke, Kant
Confucian Relational harmony, role-based duties Confucius, Mencius
Ubuntu Communal interdependence, restoration Desmond Tutu, John Mbiti
Indigenous American Seven generations, all relations Vine Deloria Jr., Robin Wall Kimmerer
Islamic Divine justice, zakat Al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd
Utilitarian Greatest good for greatest number Bentham, Mill, Singer

Dimensions of Fairness

Individual vs. Collective Focus

How does the tradition balance individual rights against collective welfare? Some traditions center the individual, others the community, and some emphasize relationships between individuals.

Process vs. Outcome Emphasis

Does fairness require fair procedures (process) or fair results (outcome)? Or something else entirely, like harmony or balance?

Distribution Principle

How should resources be distributed? Options include equality (same for all), equity (proportional to contribution), need (to those who lack), or other principles like role-based or reciprocal distribution.

Temporal Scope

Whose interests count? Only the present generation? Past ancestors? Future descendants? The "seven generations" principle takes the longest view.

Scope of Moral Community

Who deserves moral consideration? Only humans? One's own community? All sentient beings? All of nature?

Learning Objectives

After exploring this MicroSim, students will be able to:

  1. Compare how different cultural traditions conceptualize fairness (Bloom: Analyze)
  2. Contrast individualist vs. collectivist approaches to justice (Bloom: Analyze)
  3. Differentiate between process-focused and outcome-focused fairness frameworks (Bloom: Analyze)
  4. Evaluate which frameworks best address contemporary fairness challenges (Bloom: Evaluate)

Discussion Questions

  1. Which tradition's approach to fairness feels most intuitive to you? Why might that be?

  2. Can different fairness frameworks coexist, or are they fundamentally incompatible?

  3. How might understanding multiple frameworks help resolve real-world conflicts about fairness?

  4. Which framework offers the best guidance for addressing climate change? AI ethics? Economic inequality?

Lesson Plan

Duration: 30-40 minutes

Warm-Up (5 min)

Ask students to write their personal definition of "fairness" before viewing the matrix.

Exploration (15 min)

Students explore the matrix individually, clicking cells to read details. Each student should identify: - One framework that resonates with their personal view - One framework that surprised them - One dimension where traditions diverge most dramatically

Small Group Discussion (10 min)

Groups of 3-4 students compare their findings and discuss which framework would be most useful for addressing a current fairness issue (assigned by instructor).

Debrief (10 min)

Class discussion: What common themes emerged across traditions? What are the fundamental tensions between frameworks?

References

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
  • Tu, W. (1998). "Confucius and Confucianism." In Confucianism and the Family.
  • Tutu, D. (1999). No Future Without Forgiveness. Doubleday.
  • Deloria, V. (1973). God Is Red: A Native View of Religion.
  • Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.