What's Fair?

Last year, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon got $30 million in total compensation.  That was 381 times the median pay of his workers.  Overall, total compensation of the top 200 CEOs in American grew at twice the rate of their workers' wages.  Fair or unfair?   

Americans love to argue about unfairness.  Founded on the "self-evident truth" of equality, when things seem unfair, complaints follow.    

This urge for fairness is hard-wired.  "It's not fair!" is one of the earliest complaints of young children.  But fairness is not just self-serving.  Harvard's James Q. Wilson (The Moral Sense) noted that around four, children often share when there is no adult making them, showing a need for social harmony essential in society. 

So, imagine you are asked to assume the role of a "proposer" in a game.  You are given $100 and get to offer how much goes to an anonymous "responder" and how much you keep.  If the responder rejects your offer, neither of you gets anything.  What would you propose?  The "Ultimatum Game" has been extensively researched.  Most proposals are in the range of 60-40, reflecting the "proposer's" sense that fairness matters.  Even in a version called the Dictator Game, where the proposer gets the offer no matter what the responder says, grossly unfair distributions are rare.

If we're instinctively inclined to fairness, what happens when we feel something is unfair?  In the Ultimatum Game, offers that are 70-30 or worse are often rejected.  Even though "responders" get nothing,  debriefings suggest they would rather punish the proposer than accept unfair offers.  Brain scans show increased activity in the anterior insular cortex, which is associated with disgust.  In short, we don't just reject a stingy offer, we are repelled by the person making it.  In real life, disgust can easily turn to distrust and anger, fueled by the brain's amygdala.  

There are, certainly, actions that ought to seem unfair to everyone.  There should be no ambiguity, for example, about policies of discrimination, bullying, and intolerance-driven hatred.  But there are also honest disagreements about what's fair.  In a capitalist system, many contend it's fair to reward corporate executives highly for hard work, even as others insist that fairness requires a wealth tax to balance the scales of distributive justice.   Those opposed to immigrants on the southern border claim it's unfair, that they take jobs and tax dollars.  Others insist it's fair to give asylum to those whose lives are endangered.    

So, how do we resolve such reasonable disagreements reasonably?

A first step may be to accept that our conclusions about fairness may be biased.  A U.S. News and World Report survey found 85% of those who are sued and win want the other party to pay legal costs, yet only 44% feel that they should pay if they sue and lose (see Moral Tribes, by Joshua Greene, p. 83).  Where you stand on fairness often depends on where you sit.  Our arguments about fairness would be more informed and less bitter if we'd admit this. 

Fairness is also shaped by the biases of the groups we're in.  Social psychologist Geoffrey Cohen found that liberals were more accepting of extremely conservative welfare proposals when they thought liberals were offering them - and conservatives were similarly accepting of extremely liberal proposals in conservative clothing. 

Perceptions of fairness are also affected by contending values.   While it seems fair that everyone getting a speeding ticket pays the same fine, those who place the value of caring above fairness  argue that fines should be scaled to the ability to pay.  A $100 fine if you make six figures is no big deal, but for a minimum wage worker who can't afford it, that fine may result in a suspended driver's license, without which keeping a job is impossible.

Fairness wars are driving Americans apart, fueling distrust and anger.  They are being waged on issues as diverse as Congressional redistricting, immigration, gun control, welfare, Social Security, drug pricing, and student debt. 

These fights can get ugly, because fairness is treated as a win-lose game.  Yet it need not be couched in either/or terms.  Immigration reform can produce a secure border and caring for asylum seekers.  Drug prices can be contained and drug research still well-funded.  Social Security can be preserved without drastic cuts or dramatic increases in taxes.

One clue to bridging differences comes from the Ultimatum Game research.  People make more generous offers when they have empathy for responders and can see things from their perspective.   A desire for fairness need not lead to irreconcilable differences.  Checking our emotions, seeing the world through others' eyes, and seeking compromise can help.  So, the next time you are ready to shout "unfair!", expand your thinking.  It's only fair.

Photo Credit: niXerKG