The New Culture War Over Fairness
This is an article from Time Magazine about the definition of fairness, and who believes in which version. This article says that fairness is based on three things. Proportionality, Equality, and Procedural Fairness. The Republicans generally favor proportionality, while the Democrats generally favor equality, and they both claim to value procedural fairness. I think that equality, particularly in taxes is very important, while proportionality plays into that as well. The taxes you pay should be proportional to the amount of money you make. I think in theory procedural fairness sounds wonderful, but that it won't work in reality because of the many ways people have of manipulating situations to their favor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While it is true that people have many ways of manipulating situtations to their favor, creating more bureaucracy, which has its own set of loopholes to be taken advantage of is not beneficial. In a bygone era, fighting for more rights for women, for unions, for minorities was a reasonable and worthwhile cause. But today, I don't believe there is a substantial amount of discrimination to warrant efforts like affirmative action or more measures to ensure fair pay/treatment in the workplace, because these things are non-issues. Of the three, I value procedural fairness the most because it's not that we start or end up at the same place, it's that we all play by the same rules. If you truly want something, you will find a way to make it work, not excuses or someone to blame.
ReplyDeleteI agree. affirmative action was a plan necessary for its time but I believe it needs to be repealed because ultimately it is unfair. it does not make everybody equal but rather gives an advantage over minority groups for past discrimination. I like Martin Luther King's words "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." there is a current supreme court case being argued over whether affirmative action is legal in considering college admissions. it is known as "Fisher v. University of Texas"
ReplyDeleteIsn't it contradictory that you say you think it is unfair and then you quote Martin Luther King? He's saying he wants his children to live in a world where they are equal when in his time colored people were not treated fairly and equally. He's saying he wants his children to be equal, not be favored because of discrimination so your opinion on affirmative action doesn't really match up with what MLK said in that speech.
DeleteI think the point of the quote was that Dr. Kings goal was for people to be judged as people with no regard to race, while affirmative action still judges people based on the color of their skin not how apt they are for a position.
DeleteI found it interesting that the author saw the election as a battle over the issue of fairness. Both Romney and Obama do keep mentioning that they would strengthen our economy and create jobs for the middle class, and that seems like an attempt at fairness to me! I specifically found the second aspect of fairness, equality, to be interesting. I once heard someone say that being fair was giving each person what they needed, not giving each person the same thing. Looking at American government, I do believe it is only fair that we all have the same rights as far as voting, marriage, etc. is concerned. However, taxes should not be equal as far as dollar amount is concerned. It is not fair for a lower class American to be paying as much as a millionaire in taxes. Ultimately, life isn't fair, but I believe the American government should strive to have a fair system. I'll be interested to see how both candidates address the issues concerning the American people. One could most definitely say that fairness has become an important topic this election.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, while I agree with Grace that there are more pressing issues than discrimination, I believe there IS enough discrimination to work towards fair pay for women in the workplace. Recent statistics estimate that women still make on average $0.77 for every $1 that a man holding the same position makes. The issue of unequal pay should be addressed until the problem is resolved completely.
Talia,
DeleteI agree with what you said that being fair is giving each person what they need, not giving each person the same thing. I think that is a very good principle to live by and also I think this is how we should run our government.Not everyone in America is equal due to gender, race, and social class. The people who have more than others, should also have more responsible.
But wouldn't you say that law makers have found almost a loophole in that with things such as voter ID laws? That is a way to limit the right to vote in some respects and therefore limits equality. As much as I would love to say that everything is equal and balanced in our society, I honestly can't when people are denied their right to vote for not have the correct form of identification and women and even minorities who are paid less than a white male. I agree that it should be a very important aspect in our goverment and society, but I just don't see complete and total equality today.
DeleteAdam - I agree with you that things are not fair. The voter ID laws, as well as the attempts at limiting voting hours in Ohio, are just two examples of just that - legislatures do find loopholes. In an ideal world, politicians would work simply to better our country, but motives behind decisions are often political and beneficial for the politician.
DeletePeople tend to throw around terms such as fairness and equality, but it is difficult to determine what they actually mean. The reason for this inconsistency in definitions is that fairness and equality are difficult to measure. Both are based primarily on perception. Issues such as taxation tend to split the nation, and it would be virtually impossible to please the entire U.S. population with regards to fairness and equality.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kira. There really isn't a universal "fairness," and different candidates will support a program that they believe is "fair" depending who's best interests they have in mind. I also don't think there is a black and white way of thinking of it. Sure procedural fairness, having a universal set of rules, sounds good. That is, if you're the one with the head start in the game. Different fairness beliefs cater to different groups. There isn't one that works for all. It's a shame but that's how it is.
ReplyDeleteI see procedural fairness as the most important of the three parts of fairness where "honest, open and impartial rules are used to determine who gets what". While there is chance of manipulation of situations, an increase in government programs will not get the nation anywhere. The government should cut back on programs and leave success up to corporate America more than the federal government. As the article said, "Romney praised his and his wife’s forebears, who succeeded despite the odds stacked against them, with no help from government." People don't need to rely heavily on the government for their success; if they truly want something they will push to get/achieve it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Liz and Kira. "Universal fairness" sounds like a fantastic idea but unfortunately, it is not going to happen. No matter what we do as a nation each and every person or group will not be treated in the exact same fashion as another. Every person or group needs something specific that others do not need; therefore, each group will be treated with special accomadtions that others may not recieve.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I think the comparisons in the article between both Obama and Romney's speeches are very interesting because it shows that, on the outside, the opinions of these two men seem quite similar, but when the speeches are dissected, one can easily see the many different approaches to "fairness." Kira brings up a good observation that the definitions of "proportionality," "equality," and "procedural fairness" vary from person to person. It can be almost assumed that Obama and Romney would have different definitions in mind for these terms. These differing definitions will create different opinions, which America is essentially voting on in the presidential election.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree that "universal fairness" is a great idea in theory, but will never happen. The fact is that there are many people today that will never change their minds on how the react to the color of someone's skin, gender, or sexual orientation. We can slowly work towards universal acceptance, but it will never happen completely where everyone will accept everyone 100% of the time. America is still fairly new to social equality, and a change like this won't happen overnight.
ReplyDeleteAs most people agree, if everything could be perfectly fair, everything would be all right. The problem is that there are so many different views on the idea of fair. This article talks about three of them, and I'm sure other people could name more. Personally, I like proportionality and that the hardest workers get paid the most. Well, maybe not the "hardest workers" but the people who are best at what they do, because naturally some people can do things easier than others. This is my opinion though, and I can see how the others make sense from a certain point of view which makes universal fairness impossible.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kira and Katie about the pertinence of considering how each individual brings along their own definition of "proportionality", "equality", and "procedural fairness". Therefore, Romney and Obama, although supporting the same ideas essentially, see them differently based upon their own beliefs, world view, and morals.
ReplyDelete