One of my sillier pastimes is doing the Radio Times crossword, the easy version. And last night I was stumped by one of the clues, and had to look at the upside down crib to learn the answer. And the answer was an outrage.
The clue was “Lack of fairness”. Even when it was blank blank E blank U blank L blank T blank, I still did not get that the answer was “INEQUALITY”.
Which is, as I say, an outrage. Fairness is absolutely not the same as equality, and under cross-examination, everyone – everyone – will admit this. Should a murderer be treated in an equal way to someone who commits no crimes at all? Of course not. Well, yes, of course, it would not be fair to treat murderers equally, but even so, equality, roughly and readily, still, sort of, means fairness. The principle is established, conceded, and then promptly forgotten. But I say that the murderer/good person contrast applies in a modified way to many other less outrageous, yet assumed completely fair, proposals for an equal outcome. What about people who work very hard, compared to people who do the same kind of work, but somewhat less diligently and effectively? Is it fair for those two to get exactly the same pay? Again, no. Equality is one thing and fairness is something quite distinct and different. Sometimes, as when dividing up scarce biscuits at tea time, an equal outcome makes the most sense. But when more is at stake and more needs to be taken into account, well, more is at stake and more needs to be taken into account.
An argument to the effect that people who do unpleasant manual labour for a living deserve, on the grounds of fairness, to be paid more than people who work in nice clean, sweet-smelling offices, is at least using the idea of fairness in a reasonable way. But notice that this argument is likewise not about equality. It is being claimed that it would be fair for the unpleasant (as it were) manual labourers to be paid more than the occupiers of comfortable offices. So this argument isn’t saying that fairness equals equality either.
My answer to this claim is that it might well, in some ways, be fairer for shit shovellers to be paid more than office drones, but that, at any rate in an approximately free society and free economy, it is not typically a good idea for people to be paid what a third party decides that they deserve. The world works better if people are paid whatever an employer freely agrees to pay them. Imposing ‘fairness’, whether defined (fatuously) as equality, or defined in some other far more reasonable way, is a bad idea. (Not least because those imposing this ‘fairness’ must clearly by unequally powerful, or they would not be able to make their decisions stick.) But that is a different argument.
Do the children of existing BBC staff have a higher chance of being hired by the BBC than the children of outsiders, other things being equal? And if not, is that a lack of equality, fairness, or both?
The OED defines unfairness thus: “Lack of fairness or equity; injustice.” In your tirade, you didn’t say what you think fairness does mean. Let me help you: it means that people in the same situation should be treated equally, or if you prefer, equitably. What can be considered the “same situation” is not inherent in the word, and therefore it does not mean, necessarily, unconditional equality. Fairness (and by definition, who deserves to be treated equally when) is subjective, but its definition is not.
So while most of what you wrote is correct, I feel it was provoked unnecessarily on this occasion. The power of crosswords to annoy is undiminished, I see, even in the staid pages of the Radio Times!
Thank you for making Brian’s point again because ‘equally’ and ‘equitably’ can be entirely different things. I can treat you in an unequal manner to others which may still be quite equitable.
Equality and fairness… I don’t really think either concept is a good idea.
Equality is just wrong, plainly and obviously. The main trouble is that in the past – in the era in which the USA was founded and a lot of democratic words got ritualized, the word “equality” was used to mean equality under the law – because back then the most glaring injustice was caste privilege. So basically everyone calling for unequals to be treated equally gets a free ride on the good name of the Founding Fathers. That just ought to end.
Fairness, though… I’m not so sure that’s a good concept either. First off, seperate it from justice. You can be unfair and just, such as when you enforce a harsh prenup on a divorcee, you can be fair and unjust, such as when you scorn the prenup and slice their assets cleanly down the middle. They’re unrelated and as often opposed as aligned. Justice enforces the natural law. Fairness enforces… what?
It seems to me that the two ideas that make up “fairness” in this culture are “equal shares by default” and “contribution earns a bigger share”. They’re concepts taught to young children to avoid resource squabbles in the family, and they’re intriniscally collectivist. Equal, divided by whom? Contribution, to what?
This teaching of “fairness” to children is now an unquestioned tradition but I’m not certain it’s very old. I believe children even quite recently were taught justice rather than fairness – and I believe this went out of fashion when the culture decided to value being “non-judgemental”.
Brian–Interesting commentary on one of my top-three hobbyhorses. Your penultimate sentence is a masterpiece. Julian–Special thanks for your commentary as well. As a US-born-&-bred person, I’m afraid I doubt we will ever return to “equality under the law,” as opposed to the pseudo-equality we are now attempting to achieve. . …Oh dear, I better hang up now, I feel a soapbox coming on….!
Of course the left confuse justice (equity) and equality – that is the whole point of “social justice” (the definition of which many leading Conservative party people seem to either not know or not care about).
As for slipping it in to a crossword – natural thing to do. I believe that Ayn Rand mentions similar tricks when leftists get into positions on the “Banner” newspaper in here novel the “Fountainhead”. Far from being a “Romantic” book (at least in this sense) it was a fairly accurate presentation of the New York City leftists of her time (and leftists have not changed much) – indeed it is amusing to spot real people under their fictional names.
The left control the vast majority of schools and colleges, so it is only natural that the people who come out of the “education system” and enter the media tend to have leftist attitudes (to some extent).
Most people have leftist attitudes (although, I grant you, the media people are worse than most) – look at the results of the popular votes on higher minimum wage laws this November.
Someone has to be fairly far gone to believe that the government can impove wages for the poor by passing a law – but I predict that the left will win every one of those State votes.
Whether most people are getting worse or better is a moot point.
I am not at all sure that most people are getting worse – indeed some doubts about the state (as opposed to any particular elected government) may be increasing.
There is still a lot to play for.
As the ecomony starts to fall apart (credit bubble financial system and ever greater Welfare State burden) the majority of people may blame “capitalism” and demand more state control – or they may be convinced to jump the opposite way.
If an organization like “Fox news” could only be persuaded to put on free market economists (who would be entertaining for the viewers as they would attack politicians like George Bush from an unusual direction) public opinion might start to move quite quickly.
But, sadly, a few computer blogs is not enough to change majority opinion. The elite will not change their opinion (it is too firm), and the majority of people do not get their news from computers – they get it from television and radio. But I doubt that the opinions of the majority of people are fixed.
My guess is that support for statism, among the general population, is wide but not deep.
Most people are misguided, but they are not evil.
Justice is the principle that condemns discrimination of which one is the victim, fairness is the principle that upholds discrimination of which one is the beneficiary. This being the case, it is not surprising that most people are in favour of justice and fairness.
Brian, I’m a bit surprised that you found this to be an “outrage”, given the publication it was in.
What other sort of thinking did you expect from the BBC?
Justice is to each his own.
Plato attacks this (in the Republic) by saying would you give an axe, that you had borrowed, back to the owner if you knew the owner had gone mad and would use the axe to attack people – but this is just a verbal trick (using property to violate the bodies or goods of other folk is of course wrong, but that does not invalidate the definition of justice that Plato is attacking).
Justice is not about “not discriminating” or other such.
If Mr Jones says “I will not have black people in my store” he is not commiting a violation (whatever the 1964 Civil Rights Act may say) – he is costing himself money (both money from black people and money from white people who do not like the way he is acting) and he is a bad man – but he is not violated the bodies or goods of other folk.
Mr Jones is an arsehole – but he is not a criminal (by the traditional definition of justice – in crime and punishment).
If Mr Jones attacked a black person (or a white person) or put a bomb into a house, shop or church (or whatever) then Mr Jones would be a criminal.
This failure to understand the difference between “not nice man” and “criminal” is one of the basic problems of the world.
“but he has not violated the bodies or goods of other folk”.
i.e. he has not violated the nonaggression principle of justice.
Justice is but one virtue (the thing that crimial law should concern itself with) and a man may avoid violating others whilst still being a poor excuse for a man – to be a good man one needs more than not attacking others.
“Justice as fairness” just confuses things. Goods and services are not some sort of pie that a nice mother carves up for the children – goods and services come into this world already owned by people (not “the people”).
In civil society goods and services are not owned by some central “distributor” and justice is not some “rule of distribution”.
It is nice to give people help without hope of reward – but that is the (much mocked) virtue of charity, not justice.
Even helping someone who is being attacked is an example of the virtue of charity.
It is not a crime (under the old principle of justice) to just walk away.
To aid someone who is being attacked one is showing the virtue of charity (i.e. one is helping them), and the virtue of courage (i.e. one has overcome one’s fear of the attackers and is going into combat).
Of course hunting down the murderers of someone is a different matter. It is not the virtue of charity (the victim is already dead, one can not help them).
It is the desire to enforce justice – i.e. to punish the murderers.
“That is not justice that is revenge”.
Revenge for the death of someone that one did not know?
we should change the world by making it a better place like donate money to the poor, recycle more, help the poor etc.