the ridiculous futility of fairness

Is it fair that low wage workers are putting their life on the line while office workers are safely at home earning more money?

I have often written and taught on the topic of fairness and justice. This Dilbert cartoon is my all time favorite. It perfectly captures the issue. This question has been expressed by many recently with the societal impact of the Corona Virus. It's not surprising the question never goes away and shows up often in public discourse. Some scholars believe the notion of fairness is mankind's preeminent concern.

You may be surprised by the title of this blog. It may seem mean spirited or draconian to you. I agree, anyone who speaks out against "fairness" is set up to be shamed. This is likely why politicians and journalist "weaponize" fairness when they are trying to show their opponent in a bad light or trying to get others to accept their agenda. 

I look forward to the time (foolishly futile I admit) when someone will answer a question like this in a new and more insightful way. First, let me ask how you might answer the question? The question is asked by progressive liberal advocates, who wish to sway public policy on reward systems away from free markets to government. Second, I do not want to debate in this blog the right way people should be rewarded but rather to explain why the question above (and others like it) is "ridiculously futile."

"Fairness" has to do with the distribution of rewards and has at least three ways it can be viewed. Each of the three are mutually exclusive of the other. No two views can be satisfied at the same time. That's futile. Moreover, each of the three are subjective. That makes agreement impossible and thus ridiculous to try.

I've covered this many times before, but let me review the 3 ways to view "fairness" that are normal.

1.  equity - something is fair if there is reciprocity, people get what they "deserve" (usually defined by receiving in proportion to what is given)

2.  equality - something is fair when everyone receives the "same"

3.  need - something is fair when everyone gets according to their "need"   

I would "jump with joy" if I ever saw someone answer like this (below) when confronted with the above question:

"That is an impossible question to answer. First, your idea of fairness and mine are likely not the same. You would use your idea of fair to claim I am "unfair." There are three ways to view what's fair and each is subjective. If you would ask me specifically what you mean by "fair," then I could give you my perspective on that. I could also give you my view of fairness in this situation, but because it isn't your view, you would then shame me and announce to all, 'YOU ARE NOT FAIR'. So going any further with that question is ridiculously futile."