Thursday, July 28, 2011
No Justification for Fairness
We all deeply believe in fairness. I find no justification for it, outside of intuition, or feeling. Why must things be resolved? We must wrongs go punished? Why do we feel justice has been done when the wrong that is resolved or punished already happened? There is no logical answer, except that group cohesiveness is more important than individual gain, and that norms of fairness were created because we survive better with them than without. But that means that in any individual instance, there's really no reason to advocate for a fair outcome. There are only positions one can advocate for, sides of the equation, parties that want compensation, and there is an authority who will decide which parties are compensated based on the narratives they spin. That's not to say that those parties weren't hurt or didn't do bad acts, but it is to say that we have no reason except a norm of fairness, or reciprocity, to intercede into situations that are already complete.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Why do we feel justice has been done when the wrong that is resolved or punished already happened? There is no logical answer ..."
ReplyDeleteI can think of at least one logical answer: because one purpose of justice in the sense of punishment for wronging people is deterring possible wrong-doers from doing wrong in the future. But for deterrence to work, the threat of punishment has to be credible, i.e. we have to punish all of the wrongs that we can, also those that have already been done.
That's fair, from a policy perspective. But from an individual perspective, justice seems a nice way to get redemption, to save face, to make things equal, which are all, in a way, little illusions, fantasies we tell ourselves to adjust to a new reality.
ReplyDelete