Conjecture
When people discuss "fairness" they are actually referring to either equity, equality or relative need. Or (like children) they mean "it's not what I want."
Definitions
Equity is how a checkout line (queue) works: people line up and are served in order. This is also know as "first-come, first-serve." Notice that we don't randomly select among the customers waiting to be served (equality) nor do we order the customers by the number of items in their cart (relative need).
Equality is how a one-ticket-per-person raffle works. Assuming the winning ticket is chosen at random, the probability of winning is the same for each ticket-holder. We don't award the prize to the first person who buys a ticket (equity), nor do we award the prize to whomever wants or needs it the most (relative need).
Relative need is how an emergency room works. If Alice is waiting to have a splinter removed and Bob needs immediate surgery, the relative needs of Bob take priority over the needs of Alice and Bob is served first. While in some cases, we'd process patients in the order in which they arrived (equity), it seems rather arbitrary to select patients at random (equality).
Example
A simple example is affirmative action. Both sides of the debate tend to complain about "fairness," yet both refer to different policies. One side demands equality or equity, while the other wants a policy of relative need. Of course, such realizations do not solve the problems involved, but they do clarify the locus of dispute.
Meta
How do we decide which policy of "fairness" to apply in a given situation?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
indicates a link to a different website.
3 comments:
Perhaps "fairness" is not a policy that should be applied to any given situation.
@Matthew: Are you saying that "fairness" is a characteristic of a policy, not a policy itself? Or are you saying that policy decisions should never revolve around "fairness"?
I think a bit of both, actually. Any policy set is either "fair" or "unfair" depending on (a) which definition of fair you happen to be using, and to a lesser degree, (b) whether it happens to you or to someone else. Affirmative action, whether as a policy of relative need or a policy of equity, is a "fair" policy. The beholder may only see it as so if it falls into his definition of "fair".
My argument is that fairness should not be a criterion for determining policy. There are always other factors that affect the determination of a policy, such as environmental factors (ie, it's too cold to go outside for recess) or economical factors (ie, we don't have the budget to give anyone a raise).
I think that stronger emphasis should be given to the "greater good" criterion. In the latter example, perhaps there is only enough money to give a few people a raise, but not everyone. Is it fair to give some people a raise and not others? How about to give everyone a miniscule and unsatisfying raise? Or do you give a raise to the people who are in the position to be able to bring in more revenue under the belief that making them happy will improve their job performance? Note that in this situation, the individuals receiving the raise are not better performers, but in the actual position to bring in money. Sales staff v. custodial staff or accounting staff, for example. Accountants and custodians are important and "deserve" a raise as much as the salesmen, but they don't increase revenue the way sales people do. But if the sales people bring in more business, there may be more money in the budget for the next round of raises.
Post a Comment
In addition to comments, please indicate any typographical errors or issues related to this post.
Or you can contact me in private.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.