First, the standards are fair. That is: the standard for evaluating things must be fair. It was Li Tiecheng who used the age, length of service, education, experience, position, etc. of the briber as the criteria for recommending and evaluating leading cadres, which led to the fact that no matter how fair the procedures were, the results could not be fair. Marx once pointed out: "It is simply a stupid and unrealistic fantasy to think that there can be impartial judges when legislators are partial! Since the law is selfish, what meaning does a disinterested judgment have? The judge can only express the selfishness of the law meticulously and can only enforce it unconditionally. In this case, justice is the form of the judgment, but not its content ("The Complete Works of Marx and Engels"). Volume 1 page 178). "The standards for recommending and evaluating cadres were set by Li Tiecheng, who was full of selfish desires, which determined that the standards themselves were unfair. The more perfect the subsequent recommendation and evaluation procedures were, the further they would be. The more just, the more unjust. How to achieve fair standards? This involves issues such as democratization, objectification, and scientificization of standard setting.
Second, the result is fair. Because Westerners firmly believe in the Christian teaching of "original sin", they lack confidence in seeking just results in the human world. The Chinese people firmly believe that "nature is inherently good" and that "people have the same mind and the same principles." Therefore, they go through all kinds of hardships to "find an explanation" in the world. The Chinese do have a tendency to value entities over procedures. Although there are shortcomings, Westerners do have the bad habit of attaching importance to procedures and ignoring entities. Simpson was suspected of murder in the United States. After the trial, most people believed that Simpson killed the victim. In the subsequent civil case, Simpson was also sentenced to compensate the victim's family a large sum of money. However, the criminal verdict acquitted him because the police Simpson's home was searched without a warrant. However, bloodstains on the floor of Simpson's home were consistent with the victim's blood, as were a bloody glove, which was a pair of gloves found at the murder scene. Americans can accept the expungement of Simpson's criminal liability simply because the police's evidence-gathering methods are illegal, but the Chinese cannot accept it anyway. Because that kind of procedure looks fair, but is actually an alienation of procedure.
Substantive justice and procedural justice
Justice is something that people yearn for. Whether in the East or the West, scholars have defined it from different perspectives and put forward many plans on how to realize justice. These plans mainly focus on two aspects - what the poster calls procedural justice and substantive justice.
In order to facilitate understanding, the following is a simplified definition of justice (not entirely scientific)--justice refers to the fairness of the distribution of rights/obligations. The core of justice is believed to be fairness in distribution. The subject of distribution is rights, including property, power, spirituality, identity, etc. For example, a fair trial is to balance the criminal suspect's guilt with the punishment he received.
Substantive justice is the most fascinating thing. The ultimate goal it pursues is to fairly distribute everyone's rights and obligations. However, under realistic conditions, it can only be an ideal------in a substantive sense. Justice is theoretically feasible, but the conditions for its realization are absolutely unattainable. The reason is very simple--there are no identical leaves in the world. If two leaves are assigned to two people, then naturally One person's leaf will be better than another's (even if the difference between the two leaves is small enough to be ignored, it will still cause substantial injustice between the two). What's more, different people have different feelings about whether what they receive or receive is just and fair.
So the West began to seek procedural justice and use it to promote substantive relative justice - that is, before allocating rights and obligations, it first establishes a distribution rule that everyone must abide by, even if this rule will lead to Substantively, it is fair to favor one over the other. We can illustrate this problem with the example of poker that we often play. If we purely pursue substantive justice, then Poker cannot be played, because substantive justice requires that all cards (whether big or small) be equally distributed among players, which will lead to everyone Players must take exactly the same cards, otherwise the injustice during the period will be obvious--why is his card better than the card in my hand? So in order to keep the game going, people have to formulate a rule for dealing cards, which is a procedure - take turns to draw cards, and whether the cards in hand are good or bad depends on luck. If there is no cheating, the cards in people's hands cannot be exactly the same, and people have no reason to complain about unfairness because the cards in their hands are not good.
In order to illustrate the importance and effectiveness of procedural justice, let me conduct an example exercise for you: Suppose you have two children, and they often have conflicts over certain things. One day, you bought a watermelon for your two sons. This involves how to balance the interests of your two children. You have two options. The first option is to do everything possible to achieve physical justice---distribute the watermelon equally between your two children, so you take a handful. After measuring, measuring, and calculating with the ruler, you finally cut the watermelon into two halves evenly with the knife. But here comes the question, is your score necessarily equal? The answer is impossible, because half of the watermelons will definitely be larger than the other half. If you weigh them in grams, they may weigh the same. If you weigh them in milligrams, then the size difference between them will be obvious. Taking a step back, even if the watermelons you cut are exactly the same size, your two little guys may look at each other from one mountain to another, and the younger brother may always feel that the older brother's watermelon is bigger than his (this is normal for humans) (due to psychological factors) and the elder brother will feel the same way, so they still feel it is unfair, there will be conflicts between them, and they may even feel that you, the parent, are not evenly matched. So you can only implement the second plan - to pursue procedural justice. You can set up a procedure like this: the boss cuts the watermelon, and the second child gives priority to the watermelon. In this case, the boss himself will do everything possible to distribute the watermelon evenly. Of course, his watermelon cutting skills must not be as good as yours, because he is a child after all. After the eldest son cuts the watermelon, the second eldest son takes the half that he thinks is the biggest. Even if the two halves of the watermelon are very different in size, the eldest son has nothing to say. In this way, if the conflict is resolved, there will be no quarrels between them over issues of fairness and injustice, don't you think? We can also apply this small example to social life. For example, it is strictly forbidden for someone to cut and select watermelons, and to be both a referee and an athlete.