Final answer:
The notions of fair play and substantial justice are respected when decisions consider the complexity and context of human scenarios, aiming for equity and the broader societal good, rather than the mere uniform application of rules.
Step-by-step explanation:
The notions of fair play and substantial justice are not offended when circumstances are considered in a way that aligns with ethical principles, societal values, and the notion of equity. When considering whether an action is fair or just, it's essential to acknowledge the complexity of the human condition and the context in which actions take place. This can mean acknowledging the difference between intentional harm and self-defense or considering the maturity of an individual in terms of their ability to comprehend the consequences of their actions. Thus, fairness and justice are often more nuanced than the mere application of uniform rules.
For example, in the legal system, fairness may not require equal treatment of all cases, given that circumstantial variances can necessitate different judicial responses to serve the concept of justice. Notions such as Rawls's theory suggests that a just society is designed without knowing one's place in it, to avoid bias and ensure fairness for all, including the least well-off. Furthermore, legislative processes should strive for impartiality, avoiding conflicts of interest that may compromise the ideals of justice.
However, there are also practical considerations such as maintaining social order and security, which sometimes demand that notional ideals be balanced against the government's responsibility to govern effectively. In sum, fairness and justice are not offended when decisions are made in a manner that respects the complexity and variability of human situations, striving for equity over equality and considering the broader societal implications of those decisions.