> we are still focused on defining fairness from the POV of a single judge, and not from the entire integrated awareness of every participant in the community

> we are still focused on defining fairness from the POV of a single judge, and not from the entire integrated awareness of every participant in the community Maybe I am misinterpreting your want, but this could be because some definitions of fairness directly contradict each other in some situations. So some unified view of fairness is not possible (in the view that I think you want). Impossibility of Fairness: https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.07236 https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.07236 There are some frameworks to trade to balance competing fairness definitions (https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~toni/Papers/icml-final.pdf https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~toni/Papers/icml-final.pdf). Somewhat related, but you have a trade off between calibration of a binary classifier and metrics on the positive and negative classes when you don't have equal base rates and similar ratios of some characteristics in the two classes: https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.07236 https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.07236