Individual differences in judgments of the fairness of various sociopolitical phenomena were examined in three surveys. Scales measuring two value dimensions thought to underlie the meaning of fairness were constructed, and survey respondents endorsing these different values were compared on their evaluation of the procedural and distributive fairness of political objects. Those endorsing the value of proportionality, hypothesized by equity theorists to underlie fairness judgments, judged equity-based public policies to be fairer than equality-based policies and judged that Ronald Reagan would be a fairer president than Walter Mondale. These people also emphasized the procedural aspects of government when judging government fairness. Respondents endorsing the value of egalitarianism, hypothesized by developmental theorists and some political philosophers to underlie fairness judgments, judged equality-based public policies to be fairer than equity-based policies and judged that Mondale would be a fairer president than Reagan. These people emphasized the distributive aspects of government when judging government fairness. Results support the naive moral philosopher image of the individual as judge of political objects (Tyler, 1984a). Political fairness judgments are ideological responses and are subject to the influence of the value structure of the judge (Tetlock, 1986).