Fairness as we are discussing means something like justice or equity. Something that is
mutually satisfying, if not to the recipient, to disinterested observers.
I'm not sure this helps. First, I think justice is even harder to define than fairness, so that doesn't help. Equity is usually defined in terms of fairness, so that is circular. So far, neither one gives us much help.
"Something that is mutually satisfying, if not to the recipient, to disinterested observers" requires that there be disinterested observers. Three problems. First, it is purely subjective. Second, is there any such thing as a disinterested observer? It's sort of like the problem in some branches of science where the observer simply by observing affects the outcome of the experiment.
Third, it often gets us back to the liberal-conservative issue (sorry!) because whether an observer sees something as fair often depends on their political outlook. Is the Swedish political system fairer than than the U.S. political system? Different groups of disinterested observers will, I expect, give us different answers.
Is it fair to execute convicted murderers? Is it fair to prohibit teens who get pregnant through consensual sex (not rape or incest) to abort a 30 week fetus? Is it fair to require school districts to provide full time aides for severely handicapped students if that means they can't afford new textbooks for their mainstream students? Is it fair for colleges to punish whites who call blacks "nigger" but not punish blacks who call whites "honkeys"? Is it fair to prevent five thousand people who want to hear a prayer before a school football game to be prevented from hearing it because it might offend a dozen people? (That's one, btw, which I think is just but not fair.)
How are you going to find disinterested observers to give you opinions on these questions? If they know enough to answer responsibly (that is, from knowledge of the situation, not from ignorance of the issues), they are almost certainly not disinterested. |
