The distinction between the three principles sounds plausible, but when is which principle applied and when may several strategies have to be combined?
Everyone should start with the principle of equality. "It always applies when there is no good reason to treat people differently, " explains Erlinger. But if these exist, the need and / or contribution principle comes into play.
It is therefore important to find the right mixture. An example: For the history test, all students have one hour time. A pupil gets 15 minutes more because he sprained his right hand while doing sports and therefore can not write so fast.
The victim role
But what if you yourself become a victim of injustice? If the boss refuses the deserved promotion or the partner complains to others about their own male laziness, even though they have just cleaned up the basement?
It does not mean you have to quit your job or put your partner out the door. It always pays to pause first - maybe the other one is right and the "unfair" treatment is basically nonexistent.
However, anyone who is completely sure that something is unfair should resist it. Swallowing his frustration or crying out to friends does not help anymore and at the most damages your health. A respectful conversation can be enough to solve the problem.
Even though people know each other well, no one can look into the other's head and guess their feelings. So always explain why you feel unfairly treated, perhaps the other has never looked at the matter from another point of view. Unfortunately, defending oneself does not always help.
In some situations, it just can not be fair to all concerned. Then it just means: accept the immutable. The American philosopher John Rawls once put it this way: "Injustice is only acceptable if it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice." And for those who can not accept it, a small consolation: "Life is unjust, but Remember: not always to your disadvantage. "(John F. Kennedy)