Is fairness in the eye of the beholder?

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg opening ...

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg opening the 2008 Tribeca Film Festival. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Complaining about talk about taxing the wealthy, Michael Bloomberg said, “This business of ‘Well, they can afford it; they should pay their fair share?’ Who are they to say ‘Somebody else’s fair share?’ ”


N. Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard economist, doesn’t think there is an answer. “Fairness, like beauty,” he writes, “is in the eye of the beholder.”


The answer to Bloomberg as a practical matter is: the electorate decides what is someone’s fair share. The rough and tumble of politics settles the matter—until another election and legislators make readjustments.


Mankiw’s comment regarding fairness is more challenging. His analogy to beauty implies that judgments about fairness are no more objective than what constitutes beauty; it is purely subjective.


Mankiw’s idea about beauty is widespread and is right on one level. People do disagree about what is beautiful. But that doesn’t stop philosophers and critics from attempting to come up with some criteria that moves beyond subjective judgments. No aesthetic judgment is absolute, but some judgments are better than others.


Several studies demonstrate beauty may well be universal, even if not objective (I will write about this in a future blog). And the same may be said about fairness. There is no absolute standard and the judgment will be influenced by the facts and the context. Nevertheless, there is an identifiable core. Jonathan Haidt sees fairness as related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.”


Haidt, professor of psychology at New York University and founder of Moral Foundations Theory, understands fairness to be innate. Culturally variation occurs as different values are added to the mix, various narratives are employed to explain matters and institutions are created to carry out and enforce the moral foundation.


Liberals and conservatives place a different stress in the fairness component and therefore support different institutional responses to ensure a fair society. Working out these differences is a significant part of the purpose of politics.


Politics is a sub-set of ethics and ethics makes sense as it is rooted in the realities of human nature. It is in this way that ethics, politics and psychology are parts of a whole.


There is no easy answer to what fairness is, but that is something, not nothing. Fairness in taxes, like all notions of fairness, is a social concept and the answer must be arrived at through interactions with others. Some things are simply unfair. Even children know that.





3 thoughts on “Is fairness in the eye of the beholder?

  1. The substance of what is fair in each instance, is no doubt subjective and colored by self-interest and much else. But a sense of fairness, I would argue is innate and universal.

  2. “The electorate decides what is someone’s fair share”…I would argue that the electorate most certainly does not decide, the bankers and billionaires who control the electoral process and vet every candidate long before the public is introduced to them are the ones who decide, of which Bloomberg happens to belong to that exclusive club.

  3. Pingback: In All Fairness, We Must Ask The Rich to Pay Their "Unfair Share" of Taxes | GravitySailor

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s