Morality versus Fairness

[fast]

Just because an act is wrong, it is not therefore unfair, and there are examples to support this, but are there examples to support the inverse? In other words, if an act is unfair, is it therefore wrong? If you have an example of an act that is unfair yet not wrong, I'd be interested in knowing.

 

[The AntiChris]

I think first of all you need to define what you understand by "wrong" and "fair".

 

[fast]

I think first of all you need to define what you understand by "wrong" and "fair".

Fairness deals with treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike. For example, if a teacher only rewards A-students with a star, then it's not unfair to B-students that they don't get a star. What would be unfair is either a) a B-student got a star or b) an A-student didn't get a star.

A reporter once asked a football coach (who was known for mistreating his players) if he thought it was fair to treat his players so badly. He said it's fair because he treats them all the same. This is an example where he isn't treating anyone unfairly yet treats them wrong.

So, there can be absence of unfairness in the presence of wrongful behavior. What I'm not quite sure is if all cases of unfairness is a case of wrongfullness. If I can be rightfully unfair, I'd be interested in knowing how to do so.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Probably not the sort of thing you mean because you could make an argument that this is both right and fair, and I would.

A friend of mine has a daughter with 3 children. She gives money presents for birthdays and Xmas, at the daughter's suggestion. She varies them according to age, so that the 8yo gets, say $20, while the 18yo gets $50.

My friend (and I, too) reasons that when the 8yo gets to 18 he will also get 18yo sized presents.

The daughter argues that all her children should get to same sized gift, so from her perspective, it's unfair, but I doubt that she would be making the claim that the disparity is morally wrong.

I suspect "fairness" will often be a function of where you're sitting, while justice, still a fluid concept, is more universal.

 

[Bronzeage]

Suppose two people are suffering a fatal disease and will both be dead in a matter of hours, if not treated with an effective drug. Such a drug exists, but only enough to treat one person.

Is it right to choose one person and give them the full dose, or fair to give each a half dose? The full dose will effect a full cure, while half a dose gives each person an extra day of life. What is the moral choice?

 

[bigfield]

Suppose two people are suffering a fatal disease and will both be dead in a matter of hours, if not treated with an effective drug. Such a drug exists, but only enough to treat one person.

Is it right to choose one person and give them the full dose, or fair to give each a half dose? The full dose will effect a full cure, while half a dose gives each person an extra day of life. What is the moral choice?

Flip a coin, give the winner the full dose, and comfort the other.

 

[Bronzeage]

Suppose two people are suffering a fatal disease and will both be dead in a matter of hours, if not treated with an effective drug. Such a drug exists, but only enough to treat one person.

Is it right to choose one person and give them the full dose, or fair to give each a half dose? The full dose will effect a full cure, while half a dose gives each person an extra day of life. What is the moral choice?

Flip a coin, give the winner the full dose, and comfort the other.

This solution supposes that longevity of life has value, so the solution which extends life the most is judged right.

What if one patient is 12 years old and the other is 65? Does the greater potential longevity of the 12 year old tip the decision in his favor?

 

[fast]

Probably not the sort of thing you mean because you could make an argument that this is both right and fair, and I would.

A friend of mine has a daughter with 3 children. She gives money presents for birthdays and Xmas, at the daughter's suggestion. She varies them according to age, so that the 8yo gets, say $20, while the 18yo gets $50.

My friend (and I, too) reasons that when the 8yo gets to 18 he will also get 18yo sized presents.

The daughter argues that all her children should get to same sized gift, so from her perspective, it's unfair, but I doubt that she would be making the claim that the disparity is morally wrong.

I suspect "fairness" will often be a function of where you're sitting, while justice, still a fluid concept, is more universal.

I'd argue that it is fair. She isn't treating everyone equally, but then again, treating everyone equally isn't the hallmark of fairness. It's treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike. In this case, all young children are treated the same (small gift), and all older children are treated the same (large gift). If two of the three are young, and if one of those two is treated like the older, that would be unfair, both to the younger and older one.

Treating all white people one way, and treating all black people another way is fair under this notion, but it's not generally viewed that way because they are not all treated the same, so either I'm mistaken about fairness, or it really is fair but perhaps simply very wrong.

Treating all criminals one way, and treating all law abiding people another way is fair under this notion, but this ...

Tough subject

 

[Eric H]

Suppose two people are suffering a fatal disease and will both be dead in a matter of hours, if not treated with an effective drug. Such a drug exists, but only enough to treat one person.

Is it right to choose one person and give them the full dose, or fair to give each a half dose? The full dose will effect a full cure, while half a dose gives each person an extra day of life. What is the moral choice?

Flip a coin, give the winner the full dose, and comfort the other.

This solution supposes that longevity of life has value, so the solution which extends life the most is judged right.

What if one patient is 12 years old and the other is 65? Does the greater potential longevity of the 12 year old tip the decision in his favor?

And if the 65 year old is a billionaire, and the twelve year old girl is the daughter of a maid living on minimum wages, there is no contest, unfairness wins.

 

[The AntiChris]

I think first of all you need to define what you understand by "wrong" and "fair".

Fairness deals with treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike.

That seems reasonable.

I can'timagine that anyone would argue that that it's not wrong to be unfair. The problem is that different people will have different notions of precisely what constitutes "like" cases (the dispute cited by spikepipsqueak is an example of this).

 

[bigfield]

Suppose two people are suffering a fatal disease and will both be dead in a matter of hours, if not treated with an effective drug. Such a drug exists, but only enough to treat one person.

Is it right to choose one person and give them the full dose, or fair to give each a half dose? The full dose will effect a full cure, while half a dose gives each person an extra day of life. What is the moral choice?

Flip a coin, give the winner the full dose, and comfort the other.

This solution supposes that longevity of life has value, so the solution which extends life the most is judged right.

What if one patient is 12 years old and the other is 65? Does the greater potential longevity of the 12 year old tip the decision in his favor?

Arguably, the 65 year-old has less to lose (or rather, less living to miss out on), so I would choose the 12 year old.

However if the difference in ages was much smaller, say less than a year, then the difference in potential longevity becomes in significant.

Giving both a mere 1 extra day of life is not a worthwhile option. There is relatively little difference between dying today and dying tomorrow.

 

[fast]

Suppose two people are suffering a fatal disease and will both be dead in a matter of hours, if not treated with an effective drug. Such a drug exists, but only enough to treat one person.

Is it right to choose one person and give them the full dose, or fair to give each a half dose? The full dose will effect a full cure, while half a dose gives each person an extra day of life. What is the moral choice?

Flip a coin, give the winner the full dose, and comfort the other.

This solution supposes that longevity of life has value, so the solution which extends life the most is judged right.

What if one patient is 12 years old and the other is 65? Does the greater potential longevity of the 12 year old tip the decision in his favor?

And if the 65 year old is a billionaire, and the twelve year old girl is the daughter of a maid living on minimum wages, there is no contest, unfairness wins.

Isn't the one making $2 an hour the one that has earned the right to buy the bracelet that the one making only a quarter a day cannot afford?

 

[Eric H]

fast;
Isn't the one making $2 an hour the one that has earned the right to buy the bracelet that the one making only a quarter a day cannot afford?

Should anyone in this world earn $2 an hour?

A toilet cleaner in the UK can earn about £6 - 7 per hour, a teacher in a third world country earns £2 - 3 per day. Does a toilet cleaner deserve to earn more than a teacher, just because they are privileged to live in a more affluent country?

 

[Valjean]

My initial view is that there's little difference between fairness and morality, though morality might be the larger Venn circle.

In re the curative drug: sometimes life just throws you a Hobson's choice. There is no good outcome possible.

 

[PyramidHead]

Fairness is subservient to consequences, or hypothetical consequences, in my opinion. If something is unfair, but leads to better consequences than the fairer alternative, I think it's morally preferable (despite being unfair).

 

[Bronzeage]

Suppose two people are suffering a fatal disease and will both be dead in a matter of hours, if not treated with an effective drug. Such a drug exists, but only enough to treat one person.

Is it right to choose one person and give them the full dose, or fair to give each a half dose? The full dose will effect a full cure, while half a dose gives each person an extra day of life. What is the moral choice?

Flip a coin, give the winner the full dose, and comfort the other.

This solution supposes that longevity of life has value, so the solution which extends life the most is judged right.

What if one patient is 12 years old and the other is 65? Does the greater potential longevity of the 12 year old tip the decision in his favor?

And if the 65 year old is a billionaire, and the twelve year old girl is the daughter of a maid living on minimum wages, there is no contest, unfairness wins.

Why? I'm not asking for a cynical comment on society. I am asking what you would and your reasoning.

Suppose two people are suffering a fatal disease and will both be dead in a matter of hours, if not treated with an effective drug. Such a drug exists, but only enough to treat one person.

Is it right to choose one person and give them the full dose, or fair to give each a half dose? The full dose will effect a full cure, while half a dose gives each person an extra day of life. What is the moral choice?

Flip a coin, give the winner the full dose, and comfort the other.

This solution supposes that longevity of life has value, so the solution which extends life the most is judged right.

What if one patient is 12 years old and the other is 65? Does the greater potential longevity of the 12 year old tip the decision in his favor?

Arguably, the 65 year-old has less to lose (or rather, less living to miss out on), so I would choose the 12 year old.

However if the difference in ages was much smaller, say less than a year, then the difference in potential longevity becomes in significant.

Giving both a mere 1 extra day of life is not a worthwhile option. There is relatively little difference between dying today and dying tomorrow.

This still supposes there is a value in longevity. If expected longevity for each patient is equal, what is the tiebreaker? Do we give the choice to chance, with a coin toss, which is to simply dodge the decision, or is there some guideline to what is moral or fair?

 

[doubtingt]

I think first of all you need to define what you understand by "wrong" and "fair".

Fairness deals with treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike.

That seems reasonable.

I can'timagine that anyone would argue that that it's not wrong to be unfair. The problem is that different people will have different notions of precisely what constitutes "like" cases (the dispute cited by spikepipsqueak is an example of this).

Not only is there dispute over which cases are "like" others but over what it means to "treat them the same". There is the Rawlsian notion of procedural fairness and justice which entails similar treatment should be allowing equal opportunity to go through the same process that then often leads to differing outcomes based upon merit, effort, and luck. Then there are those that same treatment should mean equal outcomes, such as giving to people according to their needs.

 

[PyramidHead]

I think first of all you need to define what you understand by "wrong" and "fair".

Fairness deals with treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike.

That seems reasonable.

I can'timagine that anyone would argue that that it's not wrong to be unfair. The problem is that different people will have different notions of precisely what constitutes "like" cases (the dispute cited by spikepipsqueak is an example of this).

Not only is there dispute over which cases are "like" others but over what it means to "treat them the same". There is the Rawlsian notion of procedural fairness and justice which entails similar treatment should be allowing equal opportunity to go through the same process that then often leads to differing outcomes based upon merit, effort, and luck. Then there are those that same treatment should mean equal outcomes, such as giving to people according to their needs.

I can imagine that many supporters of progressive taxation, myself included, would concede that it is less than perfectly fair. I'm not bothered by this unfairness, because it helps people who need it more (as implied by your last sentence), at least in theory. Of course, one could devise a definition of fairness that encompasses progressive taxation, but I don't think that's necessary. I would rather live in a society with happier, healthier people enabled by marginal unfairness and restriction of freedom, than a society with lots of miserable people who are all treated equally.

 

[doubtingt]

I think first of all you need to define what you understand by "wrong" and "fair".

Fairness deals with treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike.

That seems reasonable.

I can'timagine that anyone would argue that that it's not wrong to be unfair. The problem is that different people will have different notions of precisely what constitutes "like" cases (the dispute cited by spikepipsqueak is an example of this).

Not only is there dispute over which cases are "like" others but over what it means to "treat them the same". There is the Rawlsian notion of procedural fairness and justice which entails similar treatment should be allowing equal opportunity to go through the same process that then often leads to differing outcomes based upon merit, effort, and luck. Then there are those that same treatment should mean equal outcomes, such as giving to people according to their needs.

I can imagine that many supporters of progressive taxation, myself included, would concede that it is less than perfectly fair. I'm not bothered by this unfairness, because it helps people who need it more (as implied by your last sentence), at least in theory. Of course, one could devise a definition of fairness that encompasses progressive taxation, but I don't think that's necessary. I would rather live in a society with happier, healthier people enabled by marginal unfairness and restriction of freedom, than a society with lots of miserable people who are all treated equally.

I doubt many progressives would publicly admit that they support unfairness in the name of more equal outcomes. That is why progressive rhetoric focuses mostly on discrimination, corruption, abuse of power, and historical unfairness. All of these are attempts to argue that the current process that determines outcomes is inherently unfair, and therefore it is fair to intervene and readjust those outcomes to be more equal based on the assumption that a more fair process would have led to less unequal outcomes.
Simply disregarding the value of individual liberty no longer flies in political philosophy. The entire enlightenment that gave rise to the incredible progress (morally, politically, intellectually) is rooted in individual liberty as the core value. Also, liberty is what gives each individual their value. IF they are just another member of a group, then their value as a person is diminished, and thus why does it matter that they are miserable and poor? It matters because each individual has their own value and it is liberty that makes a person an individual. Thus putting equal outcomes above fairness and thus above individual liberty (rather than justifying limits on inequality as protecting liberty and fairness) will tend towards the kind of highly authoritarian anti-humanist and blindly nationalistic group-think worldview that dominated pre-enlightenment societies and efforts to enact Marxist notions of "to each according to his need" that disregard procedural fairness and thus devalue the life and well being of each individual.

 

[PyramidHead]

I generally agree, which is why I call it "less than perfectly fair," or "marginally unfair." If the only way to achieve the best outcome was to enact a VERY unfair policy, I would be persuaded that a slightly worse outcome that balances fairness would probably be better. I was just saying that fairness is not the final arbiter of morality or public policy.