Question

SUBSTANTIVE FAIRNESS

When evaluating whether a particular allocation or outcome is fair we can make both substantive and procedural judgements.

Substantive judgements of fairness are based on the characteristics of the allocation itself, not how it was determined.

Consider the society you live in, or another society with which you are familiar.

1. To make this society fairer, would you want greater equality of income, happiness, or freedom? Why? Would there be a trade-off between these aspects?

2. Are there other things that should be more equal to achieve greater fairness in this society?

Answer 1

1.

To make any society fairer one would perhaps need greater equality across all three of these measures and more. Equity and fairness are subjective to a person and hence in a society with numerous people there are bound to be differences in opinions regarding equality and hence trade-offs can necessarily arise. Let us begin with income since it is the easiest to measure and literature has quite a few methods of measuring income across societies. These methods are mostly reliable and give an accurate picture of the income inequality in existing societies. Lowering income inequality might go a long way in helping people but will it increase happiness and freedom for these people? That view can be fairly subjective. There are no standardized measures for happiness and freedom. While some measures do exist, their adequacy is questionable as they do not encompass all aspects. Moreover, these three measures overlap and cross each other. For example, equality of freedom for some might lead to differences in participation in the labour force which ultimately transfer into a more unequal income distribution. As earlier mentioned greater equality in happiness might not necessarily mean a more equal income distribution. Freedom and happiness are personal notions, that are hard to quantify and measure accurately. Many indices try to incorporate these components while measuring the standards of living but there accuracy can be questioned.

Trade-offs exist because these three aspects are not well defined in literature and have subjective views. For a rich person, greater income equality might result in him paying more taxes for the societal welfare which might result in lowering his happiness. That would skew the happiness distribution. Similarly, greater freedom in terms of one doing whatever one wants could also hamper happiness for others. These things arise because of externalities or because agents don't take into account the full consequences of their actions.

2. Other things that should be more equal to achieve greater fairness in this society could be equality in opportunity. Equal opportunity for all could also be an aspect for improving fairness in our society. It would basically imply that everyone is given the same opportunities no matter who they are. Another important aspect would be equality in treatment no matter the status of a person or their designation. So a person at the lowest ranks must be treated at par with the person at the highest ranks in order for society to be fair.