Scales of Fairness - reboot/archive
- Laura Jodice
- Feb 18, 2023
- 7 min read
In 2011 I started a Scales of Fairness blog. I decided to archive it here with a few edits.
This blog is about the scales of fairness. Imagine an old balance if you like where there is weight on both sides.
Here is a start at a list of the things that could be discussed:
Right to Fish
Water rights
Women’s rights
Things you learned in the sand box
Sibling rivalry (from the sibling or parent perspective)
Establishing equity and fairness in the work place
Economic perspectives on fairness
Right to have healthcare
How perception of fairness and equity affects the policy process
The role of science in decision-making (objectivity)
Posted on June 18, 2011
When I visited my father in the hospital after his first heart attack, when he was 50, he told me “you are responsible for the scales of fairness.” He had his heart attack while downhill skiing, and he would not let the ski patrol put him in the sled but insteaded insisted on skiing down the remainder of the slope, with ski patrol alongside. Anyway, when he was laying in the hospital bed and attached the scales of fairness to me, it was hard for me to be sure whether he was referring to something from childhood (e.g., his response to when my siblings or I would say, “that’s not fair”), my general propensity to try to make the situation fair for all involved, his feeling that I provided some balance within my family (eg., during heated discussions I would typically point out the opposing argument, however it was usually ignored), or a heart attack related, drug induced, dream thought that somehow included my visit. Either way, I have established this blog theme as a means to encourage comment on situations I or others observe where the balance is weighted too far in one direction or for insight on how to create balance. This desire for balance is tied to a desire for peace, reasonable thinking, integrity, and truth. Also, it is related to my need to reduce stress and anxiety in the world around me (yup).
Posted on June 19, 2011
I have decided to start with a relatively simple problem of fairness. When you have two dogs in the house, you may worry about fairness on a daily basis, at least the dog interpretation of fairness. For example, Sophie often wonders why Oreo always gets more food than she does in the morning. We have to remind Sophie that she is a slightly smaller dog with a relatively slow metabolism (we think this is related to her life of forest living while she was a stray) and that before Oreo was adopted in February, Sophie only had a dish of dog food in the evening. Also, since Oreo wakes us up in the morning and beats us until we give him food, it seems reasonable to make sure he is satisfied. But then we can also remind Sophie that we always give the dogs biscuits in even amounts, so if Oreo gets a biscuit, so does Sophie. Also, if Sophie gets a chewable heartworm pill, so does Oreo. One problem is that when I go for a run in the forest, I can only take one dog. So this morning, I took Oreo, because Sophie went last time (yes, I try to keep track). However, Sophie was really upset that she was not going to the forest. I gave her a rawhide chew to distract her, but she just dropped it on the floor in disgust. In the reverse situation, Oreo will typically be satisfied with a rawhide chew as the alternative to going to the forest. Otherwise, we are fortunate that dogs know how to work out fairness on their own. For example, when it is time to go to bed, they have it worked out that Sophie gets the dog bed first, and then, when she is ready to leap up to the bed (once we start to fall asleep), Oreo gets the dog bed. Also, they seem to have worked out who gets the prime spot for looking out the front window, to look for dogs and people passing by or Brita the evil cat. Sometimes they lay side by side, but most of the time they trade off on sentry work. This seems like a reasonable plan to me. I think sharing responsibility is important to fairness.
Posted on September 19, 2011
Two weekends ago, the priest at our church said, said, “the world is not a level playing field.” His point, as I understood it, was to remind us that there will always be people who behave in an unfair and unjust manner, and that we should continue to forgive them. So I think it is also good to consider whether your focus is on being someone who needs to be forgiven for being part of the imbalance in the playing field, or whether you contribute to balance and are someone who is forgiving. I know it is not easy to forgive. It is also hard for some of us not to want to always level the playing field. This also reminds me that I still have trouble forgiving the girls in ninth grade who always got to be starters on the field hockey team, even though they just smoked weed in the locker room, and who used to look over the wall of the bathroom stall, but I will try.
Posted on October 30, 2011
If you have two or more dogs, you are faced with a petting equity dilemma. You could pet each dog based on perceived need, which dog is the cutest and softest, or which dog is closest to you at any one time. If you feel you must give the dogs equal attention, and you have one dog that gets jealous when you pet the other, here is a possible solution. You can just pet them both at once, and you can even push them together, side by side, and pretend you are petting one especially large dog. However, if one dog is shedding more than the other, the dog that is shedding less could end up with lots of loose fur from the other dog. Fortunately, the dog who receives the shed fur from the other dog could generally care less, and it is unlikely they will purposely retaliate or feel dumped upon. However, people are not necessarily like dogs. One person might get unhappy if another person dumps their loose fur all over them or consumes a larger amount of petting than is fair. Also, with people, maintaining petting equity is much more challenging. The question is, if you are a person who feels that dogs in the home should receive equal petting attention, are you also the type of person who strives to treat people who are closest to you as fairly as possible?Also, if you have gerbils, say more than 10 in a cage…well let’s say 20…it would be very difficult to treat them fairly because for the most part they all look the same (and petting may result in a bit finger as well), and with that many gerbils in a confined space, you will eventually witness activities that occur when any population starts fighting over limited resources. I would post a photo of gerbils as an illustration but that could be a gruesome photo and lead me to have gerbil nightmares.
Posted on November 1, 2011
Many of us have encountered problems with food sharing when there are multiple people in a family or shared house. So here is a problem to consider. Let’s say you are in a family situation. One individual in the family feels particularly hungry one morning…so hungry that he eats five sandwiches before lunchtime. This effectively leaves no bread for others in the house to eat lunch. The grocery store is an easy two block walk away. It is likely that others in the house would like to have some lunch using the bread. So, what should the now satiated five sandwich eater do? A) leave it to the others to fend for themselves (surely one of them can walk downtown and acquire more lunch materials) OR B) offer to do some shopping to make up for the unexpected food deficit OR C) ignore the problem OR D) offer to make a gourmet lunch, enough for the others, and join in eating it.
Posted on February 7, 2012
I fully recognize that balancing the scales of fairness is a near impossible task, particularly as complexity increases. However, completely ignoring fairness within the constraints seems irresponsible. Under what conditions is it appropriate to completely ignore fairness?
Posted on February 7, 2012
Below is a link a friend sent. It is a very short economy lecture by Robert Reich and relevant to the fairness discussion. One question that arises for me after viewing this is, what is the impact of fear on achieving fairness? For example, what is the impact of scaring others (ie, Can you achieve fairness or justice under this condition?), and how does being afraid impact an individual' s behavior ability to achieve or feel there is fairness?
Posted on February 9, 2012
How does blind faith impact actual fairness? How does blind faith impact the perception of fairness?
Posted on June 22, 2012
“All of you have been faced with the extra cookie. All of you will be faced with many more of them. In time you will find it easy to assume that you deserve the extra cookie. For all I know, you may. But you’ll be happier, and the world will be better off, if you at least pretend that you don’t.” Michael Lewis, 6-3-2012, Princeton University Commencement Speech
I think the same idea is true for the extra Canoli.
Posted on May 9, 2014
How does narcissism impact an individual’s perception of fairness? My observation is that those with narcissistic tendencies almost always perceive fairness relative to what benefits them. (I'm not a psychologist or expert on this topic.) But perhaps we all do this at some time or another, depending on the situation. I like to think that those of us who are not so narcissistic tend to empathize more and think about what benefits others as well. I guess that is verging more on altruism. It's clearly a complex issue.
Comments