<p>This was an essay I wrote in which I tried out a slightly new format. I stayed to the general 2 example format, but broke down my thesis into two different parts, then supported those with examples. Please critique/grade!</p>
<p>**
Assignment: Is it possible for a society to be fair to everyone? Plan and write an essay in which you develop your point of view on this issue. Support your position with reasoning and examples taken from your reading, studies, experience, or observations.**</p>
<p>In a highly democratic society such as the United States, people have often unreasonably high expectations with regard to fairness. Humans always want to feel contented and believe that justice has been served. An individuals natural sense of self-preservation will prevent him from ever finding fault with him self, and thus, he will believe that he deserves total compensation for any perceived wrongs. However, we do not live in a utopia, and no society can truly be fair to everyone because people never perceive fairness in the same manner. This can be further analyzed through the inherent meaning of fairness and the extent to which people crave their own definition of justice.</p>
<p>Fairness does not have an objective definition, because different people have different perceptions. We live in an amalgam of a societyrich, poor, foolish, intelligent, ignorant, educatedand cannot expect to all receive our definition of justice. This is clearly evident through the Patriot Act, which was passed shortly after 9/11 to prevent terrorism. This greatly increased the United States Federal Governments ability to monitor citizens and included wiretapping and potential invasions of privacy. The commonwealth denounced this act as defying the principles of freedom upon which the Untied States was built; however, politicians believed it was necessary to maintain order. IN this case, the average citizen, who had done nothing wrong, considered the Patriot Act to be unnecessarily violating their potential privacy and undermining principles of freedom and justice. People believed that such an act was unfair, and considered it borderline oppressive. Government officials, however, felt that the anger of the public was unfair and unjust, considering that the Patriot Act was designed to protect the public. This stark contrast in opinions illustrates how the meaning of fairness is often obfuscated and differs between groups of people. </p>
<p>More inherently, the extent to which people covet their own definition of fairness further complicates the matter. Humans always want complete satisfaction, which is evidently never possible when two parties are both wronged. There is often righteousness on both sides, so justice cannot be totally administered to either party. For instance, in the 1993 court case Bishop versus McCullen, a structural engineer named Dowden Bishop sued a local steel manufacturer for supplying him with low quality steel. In this case, the supplier had never stated the exact quality of the steel they were selling. While they still paid some compensation, Bishop demanded complete recompense for all the designs he had used the steel in. This case illustrates how people will always want high degrees of satisfaction with regard to justice and fairness, and will not be content with anything else.</p>
<p>Although in a utopia, people would all be content, this is evidently not the case in life. Every human has a different idea of what defines friendship, as exhibited by the Patriot Act. The case of Bishop versus McCullen illustrates how people will always want to be completely satisfied with justice, which is clearly impossible. Differences in peoples opinions unfortunately make total fairness an unachievable dream.</p>
