Sensitivity to fairness or justice seems to be natural to most human beings. This is not to say that we are innately inclined to treat others fairly, but that we generally tend to compare ourselves and instinctively question why we should be worse off than another person. We usually expect consistency in the application of rules and standards, and prefer not to be victims of the arbitrary use of power to our disadvantage. A number of related concepts have evolved over centuries such as rights, equity, equality, equal opportunities and ‘the level playing field’, and have become embedded in our institutions. Regardless of this, the concept of fairness is more complex than the intuitive notions most people carry around.

Some Reasons Why People Might Consider a Situation Unfair:

• Others get more reward for less effort.
  


• Others have more opportunities, resources or freedom.
  


• Their partner does not contribute equally in the relationship.
  


• A promise was not delivered.
  


• The rules were not applied consistently.
  


• They are not treated equally.
  


• The rewards and opportunities are based on irrelevant criteria.
  


• The relationship appears to be one-sided.
  


• They are being exploited by a power advantage.

General Observations

• The general perception of fairness appears to be of great importance to peaceful coexistence at all levels of society.
  


• Values dominate issues of fairness. Nobody calculates fairness on the basis of something that is of no importance to him. On what scale or criterion is the comparison being made?
  


• In issues of fairness, we are often more inclined to compare ourselves with others who are better off than those who are worse off. Do we ever complain of unfairness when we get more than we deserve compared with others?
  


• In theory, the assessment of fairness always rests on the concepts of equality, balance or tolerable inequality in relation to some criterion or weighted combination of criteria. In practice, the assessment often reduces to a ‘gut feeling’.
  


• It can be very difficult to reach agreement on ‘what is fair’ due to differences in personal criteria and weighting.
  


• Expectations are based on context, skills, individual differences, traditional duties and culture.
  


• Sensitivity to fairness varies from person to person.
  


• Perceived unfairness may result in resentment, depression and despair.
  


• Perceptions in relation to fairness can be very unstable.

Reality versus Perception

The ‘partial picture’ problem: What appears to be unfair to us on the focal criterion may not seem so unfair when the whole picture is considered. The person with whom we are comparing ourselves may have some severe disadvantages we do not know about. On the other hand, what appears to be fair on the focal criterion may be very unfair when the whole picture is considered.

Basic Principles

• Justice requires that the law be enforced consistently for all people.
  


• Decisions in public matters must be made on relevant criteria.
  


• “Can I not do what I will with what is mine?” We are not entitled to equality with others in receiving what is given voluntarily.
  


• “From him to whom much is given, much is expected”.
  


• Positive ways of responding to problems of unfairness are more generally beneficial in the long term. These include: Faith in the ultimate justice of the universe [The parable of the rich man and Lazarus]. Being thankful for the advantages we have but don’t deserve and offsetting them against any unfairness to ourselves in other areas. Widening the ‘community of the concerned’ by promoting awareness in others. Appealing to the more noble and reasonable aspects of human nature.
  


• Negative ways of responding to unfairness are rooted in the smallness of our thinking: Revenge is one such response, and is based on the principle of ‘an eye for an eye’. Others include sulking and disillusionment. The main problem with negative responses is that they tend to damage both parties.
  


• Honour your word. A person is entitled to what he has been promised.
  


• Ultimately, you are not defined by the way you are treated, whether fairly or otherwise, but by the way you treat others.

Ensuring Fairness

1. First we must (1) be in a bargaining position where the other party has enough incentive to give us what we want, or (2) have sufficient access to support within the system, or (3) know that the other party wants to be seen to be fair and we are able to ensure that the process is open. In other words, the party from whom we want fair treatment must see it in his own interest.
   


2. Second, we must know what we want and what we would be happy to accept.
   


3. Third, we must be prepared to ask for what we want at the negotiation stage, and not agree to the other party’s demands without a reasonable price attached.
   


4. Fourth, we must be prepared to walk away if we don’t get what we want.
   


5. Fifth, we should not expect payment for what we give voluntarily.

1. First we must resist the temptation to use our power to exploit those who are not in a bargaining position.
   


2. Second, there must be a mutual understanding of what each party considers fair.
   


3. Third, we should always consider the relationship open to reasonable renegotiation if the circumstances change.

Fairness and the Pursuit of Overall Improvement

Situations often arise where changes are introduced for the improvement of the system as a whole. This can lead to a number of internal outcomes:

1. Every person in the system is equally or proportionally better off.
   


2. Some are better off but nobody is left in a worse position.
   


3. The majority are better off but the change is detrimental to the minority. This is a very common feature of ‘democratic’ thinking and modern management.
   


4. A minority are much better off and the majority suffer. This is likely to be very counter-productive in the longer term.

These arguably represent a decreasing order of fairness assuming that the original balance of personal advantages and disadvantages was considered fair in the first place. Only the first and second outcomes, however, could qualify as ‘just’ to any level of general acceptability.

Occasionally overall conditions deteriorate as in a financial or environmental crisis. Human systems will re-adjust themselves in an endeavour to cope and a parallel question of fairness arises.

1. It is an unfortunate reality that some people do make huge profits in a crisis. This exemplifies the situation where despite the overall deterioration in conditions, a minority become better off with the majority being left in a position much worse than necessary. It would be very difficult to defend this on any criterion of justice.
   


2. Another possible outcome is that part of the original whole is abandoned altogether so as to leave the remainder no worse of than before. This way of thinking predominates within the capitalist economic system, and might be considered reasonable where the crisis is localized and the abandoned part can be equally accommodated somewhere else. In a widespread predicament, however, there is no such place as ‘elsewhere’ and the philosophy is no longer defensible in terms of justice. An extreme moral dilemma can arise in survival situations with insufficient resources where an equitable distribution might mean that nobody survives.
   


3. Once again, probably the most broadly acceptable outcome is that the impact of the crisis should be proportionally shared by all, but questions still arise as to whether the impact should be borne more by those who have the greater ability to absorb its effects.

Personal Expectations

Ultimately, fairness is at best an ideal towards which we ought to be working rather than a reality we can automatically expect. It is the way we should prefer things to be, but there seems to be nothing in the material laws of nature that is necessarily conducive to fairness by any human criterion. Depending to our religious beliefs, we might have confidence in eternal justice and take it as our duty to conduct our lives in harmony with principles such as ‘love your neighbour as yourself’, that are conducive to fairness in both attitudes and outcomes without the issue even being raised. We can try to build justice into our systems, enforce them wherever possible and consider ourselves fortunate whenever we succeed.

In this world, the sensitivity to fairness appears to be uniquely human. Ensuring its existence must therefore remain essentially a human responsibility. Although law can make a limited contribution, the presence of fairness hinges much more on initiative, example and education than on enforceable expectations. It is important to remember these things whenever our sense of fairness is offended, and avoid adding self-inflicted injury to insult by harbouring resentment and other negative emotions whenever we are powerless to alter the situation.

"Viewpoints"
©Carl Jacob

Web design by Ieva Bergman