Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Fairness and equality are not the same thing

By Steven Schwartz - posted Tuesday, 5 April 2022


Thinking about equality is hampered by confusing fairness with equality. These words are not synonyms. Sometimes, inequality is unjust, but there are times when inequality is not only fair but also preferable to equality. Consider an example adapted from the work of political philosopher Robert Nozick.

Imagine a town of 1,000 persons, each of whom has an identical wealth of $10,000. One citizen-a much-admired singer called Elvis-decides to stage a concert. Tickets cost $100. Attendance is a matter of choice, but everyone in the town loves Elvis and is happy to pay to hear him sing.

The audience considered the concert a great success. After the show, the town, which once had perfect wealth equality, now has massive inequality. Elvis is not only a better singer than everyone else in town, but he is more than ten times richer. Since the town residents voluntarily exchanged their money for concert tickets, it is difficult to see in what way the town's unequal distribution of wealth is unfair.

Advertisement

To return the town to equal wealth, the government could tax Elvis' earnings at confiscatory levels and return the money to the townspeople. Elvis would not be happy. He gave a great concert, and he did not force anyone to buy a ticket. If Elvis knew he would not get to keep the money he earned, he would surely think twice before staging another concert. He might choose not to sing again, which would greatly diminish the quality of life in an Elvis-loving town.

Similar contingencies apply across society. The clever creators of computer games, life-saving drugs, and new housing developments may be fabulously wealthy. Still, their cleverness benefits everyone, including those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Don't get me wrong; I know many people are struggling. In a decent society, it is right to expect the wealthy to contribute to the welfare of the community by paying higher than average taxes. It is also fair and just to provide everyone with an equal opportunity to better themselves. A social safety net, high-quality education, and health care provide a necessary foundation for fulfilling lives. But engineering equal life outcomes is neither achievable nor desirable; it isn't even fair.

 

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

This article was first published on Wiser Every Day.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

25 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Emeritus Professor Steven Schwartz AM is the former vice-chancellor of Macquarie University (Sydney), Murdoch University (Perth), and Brunel University (London).

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Steven Schwartz

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Steven Schwartz
Article Tools
Comment 25 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy