The Key Differences Between Fairness and Equality
Fair isn't always Equal
EQUALITY
Equality means a balance of 1:1. It’s the idea that people should have the exact same social, economic and political treatment, despite their differences in race, religion, sex, status and culture. The problem is, when equality is confused with fairness, the result is a situation where people think ability, experience, productivity, effort and skill should also be added to the above list of requirements. This would mean that two bakers would get the same pay, even if one of them baked 50 loaves a workday and the other only baked 10. The pay is equal, but the circumstances aren’t fair, are they?
I’m all for providing everyone with the same level of opportunity, so they have a chance to improve their rank or conditions, but I don’t believe it’s in anyone’s best interest to expect that the results of that opportunity will also be equal. Two bakers should only get the same pay and the same benefits when they do the same job in the same way and produce the same amount of bread. Obviously, it would be wrong to pay a black worker more than a white worker, if they do the same amount of work in an equally good way. But if the black worker puts in more hours and makes better products, of course they should get paid more. That’s true equality, because it’s not just the type of job that needs to be the same, but also the quality of the work put in and the outcome of that work. They don’t add up to the same outcome, so they shouldn’t add up to the same salary.
FAIRNESS
In the above example of the two workers who put in different hours and quality of work, we are treating them fairly by treating them unequally. We’re not being biased against the one that isn’t working as hard. We’re just giving them the pay that amounts to what they worked for. We’re not discriminating or being prejudiced against one over the other. We’re treating them in a just and unbiased way, even if that means they ultimately go home with different amounts of money. We’re still treating them equally in the sense that we’re using the same rules for both of them, regardless of their race, age, etc. If they work more and produce better products, they will receive more money. If they work less and produce lesser quality products, they will receive less money. Simple as that. Just and fair – and only unequal if the workers choose to do work that is unequal in any way.
Here’s where it gets messy and where people start to disagree: what if someone is physically unable to produce more in the same amount of time? What if they are held back by things out of their control, like a disability? If they are doing their best and still can’t do enough work to lead a respectable life, wouldn’t it be fair to help them out? Life wasn’t fair to them, because it gave them this disability, so why not even things out by giving them a leg up? The able-bodied among us sometimes feel like this is unfair to them, because they are now making the same amount of money as the disabled person, but they are putting in more work. To that I say, would you be willing to forfeit your able-bodied status in order to be on disability benefits? I’d wager the answer would most likely be “no”. So the issue is mainly pride, in which case, I’d be inclined to suggest you find healthier ways to express that kind of egotism. It’s harmful both to you and those around you.
If you’re still finding this difficult to understand, or you have anything else to ask me about a past video or article, you can request help in the comments below, send me a message, or book a FREE breakthrough session to see how I can help you through Skype.
You can find more Happiness Strategy videos on my YouTube channel, so subscribe to make sure you don’t miss a single episode! I come out with a new one every Sunday.
Until next time, remember: Happiness doesn’t require energy. It requires Strategy.
Welcome to the Future of Work: The Unstoppable Force of Equal Opportunities! In this captivating blog post, we delve into the transformative power of diversity and inclusivity in the workplace. Buckle up for a journey that explores why fostering equal opportunities isn’t just a trend—it’s the secret sauce for unleashing talent, driving innovation, and building resilient teams. Get ready to revolutionize the way you think about work!
I loved this explanation great job, this was very clear and made a lot of sense!
This was a great video. I don’t know many people that earn a house that are upset about others getting a home. What they get upset about is when taxes and fees increase on the house they bought so that others can have that house and the cost becomes too great and they risk losing their house. My parents bought their house nine years ago and their fees have gone up over $500 so that the less fortunate can have more. While some say, “isn’t that sacrifice worth it?” the answer is no. its no because my parents not have to go to work sick because they cant afford to take time off. My dad now walks with a cane because he has put off his knee surgery because he cannot afford to take time off for recovery.
While I appreciate that your parents are struggling to meet their fees, I don’t believe that it’s wise to blame the less fortunate. The solution would be to make it even easier still for people to afford necessities. The more people have access to the basics (food, housing, education, etc) the more people won’t have to resort to crime and other nefarious means of obtaining said necessities. We need to be kinder to each other. More compassionate. Not more selfish and fearful of each other. That just makes the problem worse.
Late to the party, but I don’t believe Roger Roger blames the less fortunate; and makes a valid point. His parents are being forced to pay more than others for the same, which is isn’t fair or equal: it’s a form of discrimination. If it had been disclosed at the start and they agreed, that would be different: It could have been optional. And while it would help to make necessities more affordable (for everyone), that’s a whole separate track toward solutions.
I believe everyone should be paid for the value they provide, or for what they have contracted to receive or pay. For example, I’d like to earn what my colleague does, but they are better at it than I so they are rightfully earning the additional pay. If I’m unable to improve or do more differently, my pay won’t either. That’s fair.
There are other, more appropriate and fair ways to help people ‘get a leg up’. Programs, nonprofits, donations, different benefit options etc. Changing or expanding how things are done, and made for different ways of working and living goes a long way to improving quality of life. Embracing that people are different is much bigger than disabilities. Discriminating against able bodied people (or gender for that matter) isn’t a healthy answer. Opportunity for education, choice and options are the answer.
I get that people think this is mean or cruel, but life isn’t fair or equal and it doesn’t serve anyone to try force it that way by imposing on others. It creates more problems.
I agree that there are better ways to make things better than we’re currently doing. Especially when it comes to making the necessities affordable. I recognize that at the moment, it is the middle class that’s forced to shoulder the weight of supporting the lower class, while the upper class gets to coast on their riches and pay fewer taxes. I think that is neither fair nor equal. The main issue I see beyond that is that the both the upper and middle class seem to resent the lower class for wanting help, when they are in their position through no fault of their own. I believe that if we all help each other, the burden will be lessened for every individual who offers said help, and no one will resent it, for no one will notice it. Unfortunately, the programs and nonprofits you mentioned won’t do much good unless we first start there.
Hi, here is my input on this issue. When children are of early elementary school age and under, adults and older children often teach them that fairness means everybody gets ONE cupcake. Or FOUR turns on the swings. They are not often taught that fairness is about making sure everybody’s needs are met, or giving everybody what they earn or deserve. However, as children approach the tween or teen years, most of them begin to realize that the definition of fairness that adults and older children taught them when they were younger doesn’t apply under every single circumstance. They begin to understand that fairness is often based on need or merit. However, not every child begins to understand this automatically.
I am on the Autism Spectrum (very mild, previously diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome), and I take what people say literally. I understand most of what people say, but I have difficulty understanding the difference between what people say, and what they actually mean. For example, when adults told me things like, “Leanne, it’s not fair that you get more brownies than your brother does,” I thought they meant that fairness was about EXACT equality. I didn’t realize that it was ok to take less than a certain number of brownies, but it wasn’t fair to take more than that number. I sometimes felt like my parents let my brother (2 years younger than me, and without disabilities) off easy for things that would have earned me a good talking to when I was his age. I felt like he often got fewer and shorter lectures than I did at the same age. When I was going through puberty (I started around age 8 or 9), my parents would reprimand me for my behavior, but when he was going through puberty (I think he started around 11 or 12), they (especially my mom) would chalk it up to hormones. The reason I found this unfair was not because one of us was not getting what we needed or deserved, it was because I remembered what adults had always taught me when I was younger. Now, let me just explain that for a neurotypical person, there is right and wrong, but what is right and wrong is based on the situation. For a person on the Autism Spectrum, like me, what is right and wrong is based on what we have been taught, and what we have learned
That’s a really good point, Leanne. I agree that it can be tricky to learn these things when young – whether neurotypical or not. That’s why I believe it’s important to be specific about how we discuss these topics to young people. We need to have a clear understanding of the concepts before we teach them to others. This is why I wrote this article and made this video, in the hopes that they will provide further clarification to those who haven’t understood.
Thank you! How about writing an article or making a video about the key differences between reporting and tattling. This is also an important topic to talk about, so that children can better understand when they should try to address a situation on their own, and when they should tell an adult they trust.
While I agree this is an important topic to teach young children (a topic I certainly teach at work to my kindergartners), I don’t believe it’s a fitting subject for this particular website. My target audience here isn’t mothers, children or even teachers. I do appreciate the suggestion though.
“Here’s where it gets messy and where people start to disagree…”
I will suggest that the crux of disagreement is centered on WHO bears the obligation to help these impaired people out. Not whether or not they should be helped. Is it the govt’s role? The US Constitution says “…promote the general welfare…”, not *provide* the general welfare.
There is a definite place for charity in society. But many times, that has fallen short and govt has stepped in. This has turned into a system where the people who work hard and are productive have a large chunk of their money taken from them to support people who don’t work so hard.
These are HUGE issues, and you’ve shined a bright light on a very important topic.
You made a very good point! It’s a tough issue and very difficult to solve. It’s not simple by any means.