Morality versus Fairness

[arkirk]

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).

Consequences....there they are again. In your argument you delink consideration of fairness from consequences. Another person in attempting to be fair would be trying to consider the consequences of their action in order to determine what would be fair. Fairness would not necessarily be blind to consequences and indeed be geared to perceived consequences.

 

[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).

Consequences....there they are again. In your argument you delink consideration of fairness from consequences. Another person in attempting to be fair would be trying to consider the consequences of their action in order to determine what would be fair. Fairness would not necessarily be blind to consequences and indeed be geared to perceived consequences.

Very true. But fairness is often tied to the concept of rights. For example, property rights. There may be rare situations where such rights should be violated in order to produce the best consequences, provided that the violation of rights isn't severe... where to draw that line is anybody's guess.

 

[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.

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?

The coin toss isn't a dodge; it is simply the solution that provides the greatest benefit.

 

[Tigers!]

Is the OP equating fairness to equality?

 

[Unbeatable]

Is the OP equating fairness to equality?

This is how the OP explains fairness:

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.

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

You own a auto repair shop and the business is not doing well. This is your livelihood. Your mortgage, your bills, your family's well-being is dependent upon it's success, or at least it's survival. Your projection is that the business cannot survive very much longer. You can prolong the inevitable, allowing yourself time to transition to another source of income by padding labor hours a bit, replacing parts that may be worn but not in need of replacement yet. In better times, you would have simply advised the customer of future needs.

Surely you are treating your customers unfairly but in the interest of your family's well-being, is this wrong? Is not your first duty to your family?

 

[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?

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?

The coin toss isn't a dodge; it is simply the solution that provides the greatest benefit.

This doesn't make sense. If there are two choices and one provides a greater benefit than the other, a coin toss has a 50% chance of selecting that choice.

A coin toss is not used to determine the greater benefit. It is used when the outcome doesn't actually matter.

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

You own a auto repair shop and the business is not doing well. This is your livelihood. Your mortgage, your bills, your family's well-being is dependent upon it's success, or at least it's survival. Your projection is that the business cannot survive very much longer. You can prolong the inevitable, allowing yourself time to transition to another source of income by padding labor hours a bit, replacing parts that may be worn but not in need of replacement yet. In better times, you would have simply advised the customer of future needs.

Surely you are treating your customers unfairly but in the interest of your family's well-being, is this wrong? Is not your first duty to your family?

If your children are starving, is it a moral act to steal bread?

 

[Juma]

If your children are starving, is it a moral act to steal bread?

If there is no other way.

 

[Bronzeage]

If your children are starving, is it a moral act to steal bread?

If there is no other way.

Any choice is easy if it's the only choice. This is the reason human nature leads us to eliminate a lot of viable choices from consideration before making our decision.

What if your theft would cause someone else's children to starve?

 

[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.

You own a auto repair shop and the business is not doing well. This is your livelihood. Your mortgage, your bills, your family's well-being is dependent upon it's success, or at least it's survival. Your projection is that the business cannot survive very much longer. You can prolong the inevitable, allowing yourself time to transition to another source of income by padding labor hours a bit, replacing parts that may be worn but not in need of replacement yet. In better times, you would have simply advised the customer of future needs.

Surely you are treating your customers unfairly but in the interest of your family's well-being, is this wrong? Is not your first duty to your family?

Right or wrong, I will make my family a priority, but I didn't see the unfairness in your example. I see how some may say it's wrong, but I missed the unfairness part. Am I not treating all customers the same when I'm doing good, and am I not treating all customers the same when I'm not? People may 'say' it's unfair, but their saying it is often a consequence of confusing fairness with righteousness.

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

You own a auto repair shop and the business is not doing well. This is your livelihood. Your mortgage, your bills, your family's well-being is dependent upon it's success, or at least it's survival. Your projection is that the business cannot survive very much longer. You can prolong the inevitable, allowing yourself time to transition to another source of income by padding labor hours a bit, replacing parts that may be worn but not in need of replacement yet. In better times, you would have simply advised the customer of future needs.

Surely you are treating your customers unfairly but in the interest of your family's well-being, is this wrong? Is not your first duty to your family?

Right or wrong, I will make my family a priority, but I didn't see the unfairness in your example. I see how some may say it's wrong, but I missed the unfairness part. Am I not treating all customers the same when I'm doing good, and am I not treating all customers the same when I'm not? People may 'say' it's unfair, but their saying it is often a consequence of confusing fairness with righteousness.

Suppose I should not have skimmed over the definition so quickly. I'll try and save this.

Consider, our proprietor needs to do what is right for his family. He needs his business to remain afloat for eighteen months so he can retrain. He calculates if he pads all invoices 15%, he will meet his goal. This is of course assuming there are no financial hiccups along the way. This is not realistic. Life is an ongoing procession of financial hiccups. One could argue that the proprietor could reassess as necessary and pad all invoices 20% or whatever it takes. Realistically though, given that his family's well-being is on the line, I say, he is likely to do what he needs to do when he needs to do it to whomever he needs to do it to.

Perhaps that meets your criteria?

 

[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.

You own a auto repair shop and the business is not doing well. This is your livelihood. Your mortgage, your bills, your family's well-being is dependent upon it's success, or at least it's survival. Your projection is that the business cannot survive very much longer. You can prolong the inevitable, allowing yourself time to transition to another source of income by padding labor hours a bit, replacing parts that may be worn but not in need of replacement yet. In better times, you would have simply advised the customer of future needs.

Surely you are treating your customers unfairly but in the interest of your family's well-being, is this wrong? Is not your first duty to your family?

Right or wrong, I will make my family a priority, but I didn't see the unfairness in your example. I see how some may say it's wrong, but I missed the unfairness part. Am I not treating all customers the same when I'm doing good, and am I not treating all customers the same when I'm not? People may 'say' it's unfair, but their saying it is often a consequence of confusing fairness with righteousness.

Suppose I should not have skimmed over the definition so quickly. I'll try and save this.

Consider, our proprietor needs to do what is right for his family. He needs his business to remain afloat for eighteen months so he can retrain. He calculates if he pads all invoices 15%, he will meet his goal. This is of course assuming there are no financial hiccups along the way. This is not realistic. Life is an ongoing procession of financial hiccups. One could argue that the proprietor could reassess as necessary and pad all invoices 20% or whatever it takes. Realistically though, given that his family's well-being is on the line, I say, he is likely to do what he needs to do when he needs to do it to whomever he needs to do it to.

Perhaps that meets your criteria?

right or wrong, you're still treating everyone fairly. I want you to treat people unfairly and it not be wrong.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

I don't know, but how about one of the following examples?

1. Cases in which people treat others unfairly in order to save their own lives (e.g., they're told to treat someone unfairly or be shot in the head), or to prevent something worse than the unfair treatment (you can construct different scenarios, more or less realistic).

2. Let's say that researchers are trying to find out whether other primates detect and care about fairness and unfairness.
So, they set up an experiment, and they deliberately treat some cappuchin monkeys unfailry, to see how they react. Experiments like that are actually carried out on different species of monkeys, apes, and other animals as well (purely for example, http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/02/27/283348422/that-s-unfair-you-say-this-monkey-can-relate , or if you want more details http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/publications/articles.shtml ).

Those researchers are clearly being unfair to the monkeys and other animals in their experiments, and deliberately so. Do researchers behave immorally in all cases?

 

[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.

I don't know, but how about one of the following examples?

1. Cases in which people treat others unfairly in order to save their own lives (e.g., they're told to treat someone unfairly or be shot in the head), or to prevent something worse than the unfair treatment (you can construct different scenarios, more or less realistic).

2. Let's say that researchers are trying to find out whether other primates detect and care about fairness and unfairness.
So, they set up an experiment, and they deliberately treat some cappuchin monkeys unfailry, to see how they react. Experiments like that are actually carried out on different species of monkeys, apes, and other animals as well (purely for example, http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/02/27/283348422/that-s-unfair-you-say-this-monkey-can-relate , or if you want more details http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/publications/articles.shtml ).

Those researchers are clearly being unfair to the monkeys and other animals in their experiments, and deliberately so. Do researchers behave immorally in all cases?

Thank you. Chances are, if people are treated unfairly, it's wrong, but unfairness doesn't necessarily entail or imply immorality. Interesting. Been wondering about that for a while now.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

I don't know, but how about one of the following examples?

1. Cases in which people treat others unfairly in order to save their own lives (e.g., they're told to treat someone unfairly or be shot in the head), or to prevent something worse than the unfair treatment (you can construct different scenarios, more or less realistic).

2. Let's say that researchers are trying to find out whether other primates detect and care about fairness and unfairness.
So, they set up an experiment, and they deliberately treat some cappuchin monkeys unfailry, to see how they react. Experiments like that are actually carried out on different species of monkeys, apes, and other animals as well (purely for example, http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/02/27/283348422/that-s-unfair-you-say-this-monkey-can-relate , or if you want more details http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/publications/articles.shtml ).

Those researchers are clearly being unfair to the monkeys and other animals in their experiments, and deliberately so. Do researchers behave immorally in all cases?

Thank you. Chances are, if people are treated unfairly, it's wrong, but unfairness doesn't necessarily entail or imply immorality. Interesting. Been wondering about that for a while now.

You're welcome.

I wasn't claiming it didn't entail it, though, but it's plausible to me that it does not.

However, there are some difficulties.
For example, there may be a question of ambiguity here.
Let's say that Alice, under sufficient threat, treats - say - Black people in some way, and White people in some other way, favoring the latter, there is a sense of "fair" and "unfair" in which she's being unfair to black people, even though she's not behaving immorally (we can make the threat as big as we want for the purposes of the scenario).

However, arguably there might a sense in which she's not being unfair, namely that she would similarly favor Black people over White people if those making the threat told her to do so - so is she being unfair to Black people, or not?

Maybe there is more than one sense in which the word "fair" is used, even in colloquial speech, and it depends on what one means. Or maybe there is only one sense, in which case I'm not sure.

In the case of monkeys, that's not a case of people being treated unfairly, thought it's clearly a case in which some entities are being treated unfairly.

Maybe contribution to our knowledge of the evolution of morality, and the long-term expected consequences of that, are sufficient to justify unfair treatment without particularly serious consequences for the victim of the unfair treatment. Then again, maybe not. It's not easy for me to tell.

 

[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.

I don't know, but how about one of the following examples?

1. Cases in which people treat others unfairly in order to save their own lives (e.g., they're told to treat someone unfairly or be shot in the head), or to prevent something worse than the unfair treatment (you can construct different scenarios, more or less realistic).

2. Let's say that researchers are trying to find out whether other primates detect and care about fairness and unfairness.
So, they set up an experiment, and they deliberately treat some cappuchin monkeys unfailry, to see how they react. Experiments like that are actually carried out on different species of monkeys, apes, and other animals as well (purely for example, http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/02/27/283348422/that-s-unfair-you-say-this-monkey-can-relate , or if you want more details http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/publications/articles.shtml ).

Those researchers are clearly being unfair to the monkeys and other animals in their experiments, and deliberately so. Do researchers behave immorally in all cases?

Thank you. Chances are, if people are treated unfairly, it's wrong, but unfairness doesn't necessarily entail or imply immorality. Interesting. Been wondering about that for a while now.

You're welcome.

I wasn't claiming it didn't entail it, though, but it's plausible to me that it does not.

However, there are some difficulties.
For example, there may be a question of ambiguity here.
Let's say that Alice, under sufficient threat, treats - say - Black people in some way, and White people in some other way, favoring the latter, there is a sense of "fair" and "unfair" in which she's being unfair to black people, even though she's not behaving immorally (we can make the threat as big as we want for the purposes of the scenario).

However, arguably there might a sense in which she's not being unfair, namely that she would similarly favor Black people over White people if those making the threat told her to do so - so is she being unfair to Black people, or not?

Maybe there is more than one sense in which the word "fair" is used, even in colloquial speech, and it depends on what one means. Or maybe there is only one sense, in which case I'm not sure.

In the case of monkeys, that's not a case of people being treated unfairly, thought it's clearly a case in which some entities are being treated unfairly.

Maybe contribution to our knowledge of the evolution of morality, and the long-term expected consequences of that, are sufficient to justify unfair treatment without particularly serious consequences for the victim of the unfair treatment. Then again, maybe not. It's not easy for me to tell.

I'm still having difficultly with the notion of fairness. If I am a business owner and serve white people and refuse service to black people, then under the notion that fairness is a function of treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike, then as wrong as it may be, I am treating the groups fairly so long as I don't refuse service to a white person or, ironically, serve a black person.

However, there does seem to be a sense of "unfairness" (and not just unrighteousness) as indicated when people use the word "to" when they say the refusal of service in this scenario is unfair to blacks. Wrong perhaps, but how is it unfair? The answer is that they aren't being treated equally, but I'm not so sure unequal treatment is indicative of unfair treatment. After all, we don't treat criminals as we do law-biding citizens. We don't treat them equally, but we do treat them fairly when all criminals are treated like all other criminals ... And when we treat all law-abiding citizens like all other law-abiding citizens.

So, perhaps the refusal of service to blacks is fair yet wrong and with no regard to equality. Or, perhaps "fairness" is one of them emotional terms like " bullying"and "lying"'where people simply abuse them and increase the scope of them with no regard to their accurate meaning. Hence, I know people that will regard any form of deception as a lie, and I know people (here on this forum even) that would regard the denial of fertility treatment to lesbians as bullying. Maybe the mere fact that something is wrong is just being called unfair whether or not the act accurately reflects what the term actually means.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm still having difficultly with the notion of fairness. If I am a business owner and serve white people and refuse service to black people, then under the notion that fairness is a function of treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike, then as wrong as it may be, I am treating the groups fairly so long as I don't refuse service to a white person or, ironically, serve a black person.

That looks like an unusual usage of “fairness”. At least, using the word as I intuitively grasp its meaning, I wouldn't say you're being fair.
But I guess there may be more usages, so in that case, what's the criteria for “alike”, and “unlike”, under such a conception?
Is it any property?
Let's say that I serve only people whom I feel like serving, but I refuse service to those I feel like refusing service. Then, in a sense I'm treating like cases (e. g., cases of people I feel like serving) alike, etc. But would that be fair under the conception you have in mind?
If so, it seems anything might be fair.
So, it seems to me that the kind of properties that can be used to pick whether something is like or unlike is not any property. Maybe what you have in mind is that it's any property of those people that does not depend on the agent's state of mind at the moment of assessing whether to serve them?
We can still test that too.
As you understand “unfair” (i. e., in the usage you have in mind), would the following be cases of fair treatment?

a. Jack serves people whose national identity card (let's say it's a country where there is one) ends in 8, 4, or 7, and refuses service to everyone else. He knows all of the numbers because he illegally accessed the government's database.
b. Jack refuses service to all people whose name begin with “S”, and serves everyone else (he asks before).
c. Jack serves everyone, but if they pay in cash and at least the serial number of one of the dollar bills of greatest denomination they use, has two sevens, or four fours, he punches them in the face.

We may further stipulate that Jack does not tell anyone in advance how he decides whom to serve, whom to punch, etc.

However, there does seem to be a sense of "unfairness" (and not just unrighteousness) as indicated when people use the word "to" when they say the refusal of service in this scenario is unfair to blacks. Wrong perhaps, but how is it unfair? The answer is that they aren't being treated equally, but I'm not so sure unequal treatment is indicative of unfair treatment. After all, we don't treat criminals as we do law-biding citizens. We don't treat them equally, but we do treat them fairly when all criminals are treated like all other criminals ... And when we treat all law-abiding citizens like all other law-abiding citizens.

So, perhaps the refusal of service to blacks is fair yet wrong and with no regard to equality. Or, perhaps "fairness" is one of them emotional terms like " bullying"and "lying"'where people simply abuse them and increase the scope of them with no regard to their accurate meaning. Hence, I know people that will regard any form of deception as a lie, and I know people (here on this forum even) that would regard the denial of fertility treatment to lesbians as bullying. Maybe the mere fact that something is wrong is just being called unfair whether or not the act accurately reflects what the term actually means.

Maybe, but there are alternatives.

a. There is more than one usage of “fair” in colloquial speech.

b. Fairness is a function of treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike, but the properties that can pick “like” and “unlike” are not any properties, but are a proper subcategory of the category (or class, or whatever you call it) of all properties. Fully assessing which properties are in the subset is a very difficult matter in general – as it is in all cases; I'd say vagueness might prevent it -, but at least, one can tell that some properties are excluded by intuitively assessing hypothetical scenarios.

c. A combination of a. and b. (b. would apply to one or more of the meanings).

 

[fast]

All 3 examples concerning Jack is fair.

In elementary school, I remember a class where a bonus was added to students grades based on their improvement. I remember thinking it was unfair to those with very good grades, as there was no chance of improvement. Those that previously had bad grades were the only ones with the opportunity for a good bonus. If my newfound sense of fairness is accurate, then the students were being treated fairly so long as exceptions weren't made, and it's the exceptions that clues us in to what is fair or not, not the actual righteousness of separating the cases.

If Jack always serves people with national identity cards that ends with the numbers 8, 4, or 7, and if he refuses service to everyone else, then right or wrong, it's only a case of being unfair when there is an exception. For instance, if he serves his good friend who's number ends with a 5, that serves as an exception to one of the cases and therefore becomes an instance of unfairness. Another instance would be if he refused service to someone (and the reason doesn't matter) who's number was a 4.

If you complicate the cases by stipulating incorporated exceptions to further distinguish the cases, the hallmark of deciding fairness or not still lies with the presence of exceptions to the like and unlike cases.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That sounds really odd to me. I didn't expect that you would say that all tree cases are cases of Jack's being fair.
Now maybe the monkeys were being treated fairly by that understanding of the term. For example, let's say that the researchers said that monkeys #1, #2, and #3 were to be given cucumbers as rewards, but monkeys #4, #5 and #6 were to be given grapes (a much better reward). Since they're treating monkeys with different numbers differently, they're treating different cases differently, so where is the unfairness?

Motivated by the "friend" example, how about the following?

d. Jack serves everyone, but if they pay in cash and at least the serial number of one of the dollar bills of greatest denomination they use, has two sevens, or four fours, and they're not friends of Jack's, then he punches them in the face.

Is he not treating like cases alike, and unlike cases alike?
I'm trying to figure out how broad your conception of "like" and "unlike" is.