Fairness (Re: difficult people and their influence on my mental state)

[Guest guest]

I found this on the internet about FAIRNESS, it has some interesting points...

Why Fairness Should Not Be the Foundation of Liberalism September 15, 2009

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, Ethics, Political Philosophy.

Tags: capabilities, illegal immigration and health care, Justice as fairness,

what is liberalism

trackback

" It's so unfair " is one of the first morally-based complaints that children

make, and as adults, unfairness can get our hackles up. Even some animals seem

to have a sense of fairness. Some versions of liberal theory treat fairness as

the most fundamental political value. But fairness is a highly contested

concept, fraught with ambiguity and should not be the basis of liberal political

theory.

Is it fair that Rodriquez makes millions of dollars but people equally

talented and far more useful to society earn a fraction of his salary?

According to one meaning of " fairness " there is nothing unfair about Rodriquez's

salary. If by " fair " we mean that rules are applied equally to everyone, then

assuming A-Rod and the Yankees freely entered into their contract, both parties

are playing by the rules of contractual agreement—every other player and team

has the same opportunity to negotiate.

Fairness understood as " equally subject to rules " is an important value but it

is limited because the rules themselves may be unfair. One might argue that a

compensation scheme that permits the marginally more talented Rodriquez to earn

an astronomically higher salary than other players is itself unfair; or that a

compensation scheme that pays a talented entertainer or athlete more than a

doctor or teacher is unfair.

The intuition behind this kind of judgment is that fairness is tied to what one

deserves. If we base what someone deserves on their contribution to society

then Rodriquez probably doesn't deserve his salary. But what is the proper basis

for what philosophers call desert claims?

One dominant strand of liberalism has a general answer to this question. We

deserve a distribution of goods based on our efforts and choices. But since none

of us choose our families or genetic heritage, and how we do in life is

dependent on such factors that are outside our control, it is not obvious that

we deserve anything. Rodriquez was just lucky to have the genetic endowment and

developmental opportunities he had. But his birthright is not deserved; and

neither is that of someone disadvantaged by birth. This entails that a society

based on fairness, on what people deserve, should compensate people for their

bad luck, since they don't deserve their fate, and such a society should refuse

to excessively compensate the fortunate because they don't deserve their

advantages.

But this is a problem for liberalism because: (1) it is counter-intuitive from

the standpoint of common sense, and thus citizens will resist it. Most people

are morally bothered only by intentional unfairness. We seem to accept

unfairness when it is a matter of luck but don't like it when someone is

stacking the deck against us, and (2) such a compensation scheme will crowd out

other things we value.

Sometimes getting good outcomes requires that we tolerate unfairness. It may be

unfair that talented, diligent workers are laid off in times of economic

contraction but it may be necessary to save the firm. It may be unfair to put

federal money into saving Wall St. bankers while more deserving people lost out

in the financial collapse. But doing so may have saved the financial system.

Enhancing the capabilities and resources of the already talented and successful

will sometimes produce goods that benefit everyone even though that seems unfair

to the less gifted who may be denied those resources. Achievement is likely

only under conditions where people who are already fortunate are allowed to

continue to flourish.

Regardless of how many resources we devote to it, we can never prevent bad luck

from influencing outcomes without disabling the fortunate which is itself a

morally monstrous thing to do.

Life isn't fair. But there is not much we can do about that.

How then should liberals think about treatment of the disadvantaged?

What is morally disturbing is not that one person might have been lucky in

life's lottery and another less fortunate—rather it is morally disturbing that

some person has too few resources and capabilities to lead a decent life. It is

more important to arrange social institutions to enable the less fortunate to

flourish than it is to ensure fairness or equality.

We should aim at improving the condition of the worst off, not because their

condition is unfair, but because we are concerned about their welfare.

Compassion not fairness is the foundation of liberalism.

We cannot disentangle questions of fairness from questions of what one deserves.

But determining what one deserves requires separating out good or bad fortune

from what one is genuinely responsible for—and this is an impossible task. None

of us really know where our capabilities, personality or character traits come

from. What is clear is that, for the most part, we didn't choose them. Thus,

aiming at the fair outcome involves us in lots of contentious, unanswerable

questions. It lacks moral clarity and allows conservatives to co-opt the moral

high ground by injecting questions about deservingness into any discussion about

the distribution of resources.

The current dustup about illegal immigrants receiving health care is an example

of how excessive focus on fairness harms liberalism. It would be far better for

all of us if illegal immigrants received health insurance, since they would be

less susceptible to disease, more productive, and less a burden on emergency

services. Conservatives rail that they don't deserve it—and conservatives are

right. They probably don't.

But that should be irrelevant; compassion and a concern for our collective

health should be the over-riding response. But one reason why what one deserves

continues to be relevant is because liberals keep insisting on the foundational

importance of fairness.

> >

> >

> > I also think you were doing the same thing all kids of bp parents do, look

for fairness as if it's your job! We were told that life is fair if you're good,

you'll reap rewards, but growing up in such a disfuntional environment, we saw

NONE of the fairness we were supposed see at home. It makes you seek it out

everywhere, and furious it everytime you witness someone acting unfair or your a

victim of unfairness. Does that make sense? It's the legacy we carry. My hubby

actually said to me once, 'Who died and made you the world police?'! Sound

familiar? Others that have not been throught this cannot possibly understand how

much it hurts to be fair and kind to others, and be treated so horribly in

return.(Especially when it takes such effort to be kind, when we are so angry

and hurt inside!) I got a silly idea in my head that because I had finally

gotten away from my horrible family, that as long as I was kind and fair to

tohers, they'd be the same in return. Unfortunately, life is frequently unfair

and unkind, but we just feel it much deeper thatn the genral population. Does

any of this make sense to you?

> >

>