Why is fairness important? That is the question I have been posed with this week. All summer the interns (with the oversight of Ben Guest) have had a running dialogue about the importance of fairness. Our definitions of fairness have varied, and yet we all seem to have reached similar conclusions: that fairness is indeed important. However, as we quickly realized, explanations for the relevance of fairness must have a certifiable origin, founded upon more than vague principles of good behavior. The importance of fairness, to be widely implemented, would have to cross the many barriers defining individual’s concepts of morality and justice, lest this discussion devolve into a pedantic succession of disagreements. We do not all abide by the same religion, believe in the same fundamental ethical code, or endorse similar governmental ideologies. Therefore, my argument must appeal to the basic interests of all, finding a common ground benefitting all.
Personally, I think that fairness is deserved and predicated upon the fact that all humans are endowed with the same human rights regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, faith, etc. This overarching concept of human rights has officially, if not I practice, been accepted by our government. However, just as these innate rights should be blind to age, race, sex, et al., so too should it be entirely independent of government. A citizen, a worldwide citizen, should have access to the same basic elements of fairness and justice. To fail to protect such would endanger all, as the exploitation of any is indicative of the possibility for the exploitation of all others. Simply put, to protect oneself from unfair or unethical treatment it is also necessary to grant the same protection to all others. To fail to do so is the assurance that mistreatment will someday violate your rights. The tides will turn.
That being said, my second and universal reason for the importance of fairness appeals to the selfish interest of our species as a whole: maximizing our potential for protecting and replicating ourselves. By promoting fairness, we inherently are promoting the progress of human kind. In theory, the cream would rise to the top. All things being equal, those most capable of contributing to society would be guaranteed an outlet. Rather than favoring those in power, with money, or from the right country, this scenario would select for those most “fit.” While, at the same time, collectively we would progress much more due to the contributions of all. Consider today’s global economy and the United States’ struggle to right the boat after the economic downfall. Would the United States not stand on firmer ground if all her citizens had equal and complete educations? Would the United States’ foreign policy not be better received if our domestic policies matched our constitutional proclamations? My argument is that if all are allowed to participate in society, without limitations, we all will benefit. Just as students learn from each other in the classroom, so too would citizens learn from each other. In addition, this would bread a far more productive concept of competition. We obsess over the need for a “level playing field” in professional and amateur athletics under the guise that all participants deserve the same chance for success, yet no Congressional hearings are being broadcast (CSPAN doesn’t count, it is mostly unwatchable) about the alarming collection of this country’s wealth in the hands of a few. The point being, if we want parity, and we want the best to win the day, fairness must exist and it is in our collective personal interest for the best to win the day, in both the short and the long term.
