Fairly
HotEqual SharesNeedContributionAgreed RulesQueuesProcess
Latest Most fairness arguments are two definitions of fair wearing the same short word.
The Four Fairnesses

Most fairness arguments are two definitions wearing the same word.

Fair means at least four different things in ordinary life, and the four often point in opposite directions. Naming the one you are using will end more arguments than winning them.

Four people finish a meal and the bill arrives. One says split it evenly. One says pay for what you ordered. One says the person who is between jobs should pay less. One says we agreed at the start that whoever booked the table pays, so that settles it. Nobody at that table is being difficult. Each of them is applying a rule that is genuinely a rule of fairness, and each rule has a long history of ordinary use. The trouble is not that three of them are wrong. The trouble is that the word fair is being asked to carry four separate jobs at once, and it cannot.

Call the four by their plain names. Equal shares: everyone gets the same amount. Shares by need: the person who needs more gets more. Shares by contribution: the person who put in more takes out more. Shares by an agreed rule: whatever we settled in advance is what happens, regardless of the other three. Every one of these is described as fair by people using the word in good faith. In many situations they happen to agree, which is why the conflict stays hidden most of the time. When they diverge, the argument starts, and it usually starts without either party noticing that the disagreement is about vocabulary.

Continue reading

The Several Fairnesses

Shares by need, and the difficulty of seeing need

Allocating by need is intuitive until somebody has to decide whose need counts.

Contribution and the agreed rule: two more claims on one word

Effort and prior agreement are both called fair, and they routinely collide.

Process and Outcome

Why people accept worse results from processes they trust

How a decision is made changes how the same decision feels.

Showing your reasoning matters more than getting it right

An explained decision can be argued with, which is exactly its value.

The Queue and Other Everyday Systems

Queue jumping and anger out of proportion to the delay

Thirty seconds lost produces a reaction that thirty seconds cannot explain.

What a well designed allocation actually balances

Every scheme trades away something, and the honest ones say which.

When the Parties Are Not Equal

Adjusting for circumstance, and what the adjustment costs

Every departure from a uniform rule buys something and spends something.

Both positions here are held sincerely, and that is the finding

The people who disagree with you about this are not pretending.

About Fairly

Fairly is about one word and the work it is asked to do. Fair turns up in the smallest settings, dividing a bill, taking turns with a parking space, deciding who does the washing up, and it turns up carrying at least four separate meanings that people use interchangeably without noticing. We take those ordinary settings seriously, because they are where the concept is actually operated, and because they are small enough to examine without anybody having a stake in the answer. A carport, a queue, a shelf and a coin toss will tell you more about how fairness works than any amount of abstraction.

We hold one position and it is a narrow one. We do not think there is a single correct definition of fairness that the others are imitating, and we will not pretend to have settled a question that has stayed open for a very long time. What we do think is that the great majority of everyday fairness arguments are not deep disagreements at all. They are two people applying different definitions and reading each other as unreasonable. Saying which definition you are using, plainly and early, dissolves more of these than winning ever does, and it costs nothing to try.

So you will not find us declaring winners. You will find us separating things that get run together: the method from the result, the rule from the person applying it, identical treatment from equal effect, the size of a loss from the strength of the reaction to it. We keep to small, invented, low stakes examples on purpose, because the point is the structure and not the case. If a distinction only works when the stakes are low, it was never a distinction. If it works on a parking bay, it will probably still be there when it matters.