However, the problems with the idea of consciousness and justice lie in the definition and application. Various arguments have been made about how it can be defined when everyone has a different consciousness. This problem can be seen for the first time when examining the historical use of consciousness in equity courts. The first chancellors only had to use their conscience to make decisions, which meant that all judges were not subject to any law and could use their conscience. But since all men probably had the same views and belonged to the same religion, there was a sense of consistency between decisions. Although, when men with more legal training had to take over, it was argued that “one subtracts the perception of the good or evil of the other", and here problems of distribution of equity began to arise. In simpler terms, this principle means that if you are required by law to perform an action, justice will consider it as it should have been done before it even happened. Hence the concept of “just conversion". 1. Fairness sees what needs to be done 2. Fairness will not be subject to injustice without recourse 3. Equality enjoys equality/equality is justice.

4. Someone who seeks justice must do justice. 5. Justice helps the vigilant, not the lazy. 6. Fairness justifies the intention to fulfil an obligation 7. Fairness affects people, not objects.8 Equity abhors confiscation 9. Justice does not require an idle gesture.10 Those who come to justice must come with clean hands.11 Equality pleases to do justice and not in halves 12.

Fairness will take over to avoid various lawsuits 13. Fairness follows Law 14. Fairness will not help a volunteer.15 When the shares are the same, the law will prevail. 16. Between the same actions, the first prevails in order of time 17. Equity will not complement an imperfect gift.18 Equity will not allow a law to be used as a cover for fraud.19 Equity will not allow a trust to go bankrupt due to the absence of a trustee.20 Equity considers the beneficiary as the true owner. In jurisdictions that follow the English common law system, fairness is the set of rules developed by the English Court of Chancery and now administered at the same time as the common law. [3] In common law jurisdictions, the word “justice" is “not synonymous with general fairness" or “natural justice," but refers to “a particular set of rules that originates in a particular system of courts." [4] Historical changes in chancellors, principles and understanding have somewhat changed the understanding of consciousness.

Nevertheless, there are arguments that show that “there would be little coherence of value judgments between different religions," an argument that speaks against judges who use their own views as conscience because of the complex and modern society in which we find ourselves. For a brief overview of the maxims, doctrines and remedies developed under justice, in the second half of the twentieth century there was a growing debate about the benefits of treating justice as a separate body of law. These debates have been called “fusion wars." [8] [9] Particular emphasis in this debate has been on the concept of unjust enrichment and whether areas of law traditionally considered just can be streamlined within a single body of law known as the law of unjust enrichment. [10] [11] [12] They overlap and create a system to eliminate the injustice of common law enforcement. The general message is that justice affects the person and does not suffer injustice without being redressed. To avoid paying property taxes and other feudal levies, lawyers developed a primitive form of trust called “use," which allowed one person (who was not required to pay taxes) to hold legal title to the land for another person. The effect of this trust was that the first person owned the land under the common law, but the second person had the right to use the land under the law of justice. Justice as a set of rules varied greatly from chancellor to chancellor until the end of the 16th century. Because early chancellors had no formal legal training in the common law tradition and had little regard for precedents, their decisions were often very different. In 1529, a lawyer, Sir Thomas More, was appointed chancellor, marking the beginning of a new era. After this period, all future chancellors were lawyers.

Beginning in about 1557, records of proceedings before the Court of Chancery were kept on a regular basis, several just doctrines were developed, and justice began to evolve into a system of precedents like its common law cousin. .