If what one deserves is too disagreeable, and fairness too subjectively interpretable, and rights too fragile of social construction, then by what vehicle ought we communicate justice? Justice of course, is just a sensation one experiences when the conditions of a state of affairs are achieved in a way that is mutually satisfactory (or unsatisfactory) for those on each end of an argument.
I believe this is a semantic impasse. What becomes necessary is a suspension of disbelief. One must relent to an avenue in the city that is language so that a productive argument can persist until some semblance of justice is achieved. This is a collaboratively dialectic project.
Since most people are only versed in one or two of these concepts well enough to build consensus, the language game must often be constructed ad hoc, together. It is amazing how well this works, though, unsurprising. After all, this is exactly what language was made for.