<p>I would also urge you to think about equality vs. equity as two important facets to understanding fairness, especially in the context of heterogeneous societies. </p>

<p>Simply put, Equality is the idea that all individuals are exactly equal. If X people work on a project, all of them would get remunerated exactly the same amount.</p>

<p>On the other hand, Equity is the idea that there exists a quid pro quo i.e. if X people work on a project individuals would get paid proportional to the amount of work they put in. </p>

<p>Both could be considered "fair" depending on your perspective. In fact, it has been shown that individuals tend to switch between equity and equality when self-presentational concerns are made salient. 
(Ref: <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022103176900792" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022103176900792</a>)</p>

<p>Needless to say, this "fairness" debate guides discussion on Affirmative Action in the West and social reservation policies in countries like India.  I like the following piece which sums up this discussion nicely:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/iftoolkits/toolkitrelatedlinks/equalityequity" rel="nofollow">http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/iftoolkits/toolkitrelatedlinks/equalityequity</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-18T03:57:32.490Z
2014-03-18T03:57:32.490Z
Prasanta
<p>There are a variety of decidedly simple concepts that become infinitely complex when placed under the microscope of scientific scrutiny. I believe you have hit one of them right on the head.</p>

<p>Let's consider a parallel example: pornography. At first glance, what constitutes pornography is decidedly simple and obvious; yet, when the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to formally define pornography, the best that Justice Potter Stewart could come up with was "I know it when I see it."</p>

<p>Clearly, one person does not always see what another does. The same can be said of many such concepts, including fairness and justice. If we truly had a scientific definition of these things, society would be free of nearly every problem we currently face. But, we don't, and we won't.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-15T14:15:53.027Z
2014-03-15T14:15:53.027Z
theMayer
<p>Personally informed answer and I don't need to reference (which I will explain):</p>

<ul>
<li><p><em>Metaphysical background</em>: It's impossible to claim value without being <em>part-subjective</em>. Reason: such claim must <strong>come from a subject</strong> and since <strong>a moral idea is not a physical phenomenon</strong> (it may be brain physics, but unless one can explain it, then one cannot say it's physical), then it cannot be "natural-science like".</p></li>
<li><p>"Base case": Since it's part-subjective, then it means that it's <em>open to subjective interpretation</em>. </p></li>
<li><p>"Inductive hypothesis": Since it's open to subjective interpretation, then claim that "anyone can make any sort of moral claim". I.e. "I think slavery is morally correct" and "I think slavery is not morally correct" are <em>about as valid</em>.</p></li>
<li><p>"Inductive step": Given any moral statement, it's not possible to decide non-subjectively whether it's right or wrong. This is because of "inductive hypothesis".</p></li>
</ul>

<p>Implies:</p>

<p>"fair" is part-subjective.</p>

<p>"good" is part-subjective.</p>

<p>"equality" does not consistently exist, since it's possible to deviate by "applying part-subjectivity".</p>

<p>[any moral statement] is part-subjective.</p>

<hr>

<p>Semantics of <em>part-subjective</em>:</p>

<ul>
<li>It's subjective and it can be intersubjective. It's not objective, since subjective and objective fundamentally contradict (solipsism).</li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p>I don't need reference, because by moral being part-subjective I can choose to or attempt to deviate from any reference.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-29T21:17:12.417Z
2019-10-29T21:17:12.417Z
mavavilj
<p>I'd say that 'fairness' would be best treated as a narrow concept not encompassing the whole of empathy/ethics/morals, otherwise the term ceases to be specific and useful. I.e., something could be perceived as both cruel/evil but still fair/just; and harsh 'eye for eye' style punishments are perceived as fair in some cultures but still require some disconnect of empathy.</p>

<p>I believe that <a href="http://www.uwlax.edu/faculty/giddings/ECO474/Week9/Fairness_KahnemanKnetschThaler1986.pdf" rel="nofollow">experiments of Kahneman and others such as the Dictator game</a> are a good place to start - as this way can measure [an aspect of] fairness in a somewhat objective way and observe how the concept of fairness is different for different cultures.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-14T13:04:12.300Z
I know that experiments have been done saying that Medic loose empathy or that we are more empathetic to our same group. Maybe the word "fair" is more near to "justice" which is near to "rules" which are near to "beliefs" (and to manipulation from mass media, government and so on). Instead empathy can be measured through experiment and MRI and it should be less subject to change upon cultures. However maybe I can choose another word more appropriate. Can you give me a suggestion? "good behaving"? "human"? "merciful"?
Revious
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-14T11:36:24.890Z
2014-03-14T11:36:24.890Z
Peteris
<p>The concept of fairness, in my opinion, is somehow defined by the concept of <strong>empathy</strong> through some searches by <em>Daniel Goleman</em> in his book <em>Social Intelligence</em>. </p>

<p>The book deals with <strong><em>scientific measurement through MRI</em></strong>. </p>

<p><strong>Ethic</strong> and <strong>Moral</strong> are also trying to define what is fair. </p>

<p>Can you give me some hint achieving a definition of what is fair? </p>

<p>i.e. why killing people, slavery, exploiting are not fair stuff?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-15T17:35:11.950Z
Sometimes killing is fair and justified. Other times it is not. Often it is up to someone's interpretation what the case may be (as in the recent example of George Zimmerman). Therein lies your problem.
theMayer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-15T18:46:51.273Z
Yes, you are right. Also if there are other example in which is really harder to state that is right to do something. THe problem it's that some ethic says that the people has to defend by themself.
Revious
<social-psychology>
Is there a scientific definition of "fairness"?
Revious
# Is there a scientific definition of "fairness"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-03-14)

The concept of fairness, in my opinion, is somehow defined by the concept of **empathy** through some searches by *Daniel Goleman* in his book *Social Intelligence*.

The book deals with ***scientific measurement through MRI***.

**Ethic** and **Moral** are also trying to define what is fair.

Can you give me some hint achieving a definition of what is fair?

i.e. why killing people, slavery, exploiting are not fair stuff?

**Tags:** social-psychology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Sometimes killing is fair and justified. Other times it is not. Often it is up to someone's interpretation what the case may be (as in the recent example of George Zimmerman). Therein lies your problem.  
> **username_0**: Yes, you are right. Also if there are other example in which is really harder to state that is right to do something. THe problem it's that some ethic says that the people has to defend by themself.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2014-03-14. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

I'd say that 'fairness' would be best treated as a narrow concept not encompassing the whole of empathy/ethics/morals, otherwise the term ceases to be specific and useful. I.e., something could be perceived as both cruel/evil but still fair/just; and harsh 'eye for eye' style punishments are perceived as fair in some cultures but still require some disconnect of empathy.

I believe that [experiments of Kahneman and others such as the Dictator game](http://www.uwlax.edu/faculty/giddings/ECO474/Week9/Fairness_KahnemanKnetschThaler1986.pdf) are a good place to start - as this way can measure [an aspect of] fairness in a somewhat objective way and observe how the concept of fairness is different for different cultures.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I know that experiments have been done saying that Medic loose empathy or that we are more empathetic to our same group. Maybe the word "fair" is more near to "justice" which is near to "rules" which are near to "beliefs" (and to manipulation from mass media, government and so on). Instead empathy can be measured through experiment and MRI and it should be less subject to change upon cultures. However maybe I can choose another word more appropriate. Can you give me a suggestion? "good behaving"? "human"? "merciful"?  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-03-18. Score: 3

I would also urge you to think about equality vs. equity as two important facets to understanding fairness, especially in the context of heterogeneous societies.

Simply put, Equality is the idea that all individuals are exactly equal. If X people work on a project, all of them would get remunerated exactly the same amount.

On the other hand, Equity is the idea that there exists a quid pro quo i.e. if X people work on a project individuals would get paid proportional to the amount of work they put in.

Both could be considered "fair" depending on your perspective. In fact, it has been shown that individuals tend to switch between equity and equality when self-presentational concerns are made salient.
(Ref: <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022103176900792>)

Needless to say, this "fairness" debate guides discussion on Affirmative Action in the West and social reservation policies in countries like India. I like the following piece which sums up this discussion nicely:

<http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/iftoolkits/toolkitrelatedlinks/equalityequity>


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2014-03-15. Score: 1

There are a variety of decidedly simple concepts that become infinitely complex when placed under the microscope of scientific scrutiny. I believe you have hit one of them right on the head.

Let's consider a parallel example: pornography. At first glance, what constitutes pornography is decidedly simple and obvious; yet, when the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to formally define pornography, the best that Justice Potter Stewart could come up with was "I know it when I see it."

Clearly, one person does not always see what another does. The same can be said of many such concepts, including fairness and justice. If we truly had a scientific definition of these things, society would be free of nearly every problem we currently face. But, we don't, and we won't.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-10-29. Score: 1

Personally informed answer and I don't need to reference (which I will explain):

* *Metaphysical background*: It's impossible to claim value without being *part-subjective*. Reason: such claim must **come from a subject** and since **a moral idea is not a physical phenomenon** (it may be brain physics, but unless one can explain it, then one cannot say it's physical), then it cannot be "natural-science like".
* "Base case": Since it's part-subjective, then it means that it's *open to subjective interpretation*.
* "Inductive hypothesis": Since it's open to subjective interpretation, then claim that "anyone can make any sort of moral claim". I.e. "I think slavery is morally correct" and "I think slavery is not morally correct" are *about as valid*.
* "Inductive step": Given any moral statement, it's not possible to decide non-subjectively whether it's right or wrong. This is because of "inductive hypothesis".

Implies:

"fair" is part-subjective.

"good" is part-subjective.

"equality" does not consistently exist, since it's possible to deviate by "applying part-subjectivity".

[any moral statement] is part-subjective.

---

Semantics of *part-subjective*:

* It's subjective and it can be intersubjective. It's not objective, since subjective and objective fundamentally contradict (solipsism).

---

I don't need reference, because by moral being part-subjective I can choose to or attempt to deviate from any reference.


---

