How do you define ‘a fair shot at life’?
Exploring the meaning of fairness in life by Friedman, Tawney, and Rawls
One of the modules I took during my Cambridge time was called “Happiness, Justice, Freedom, and Capabilities”. I have been interested in the topic of happiness since my undergraduate time. It has always been a side interest, where I explored the meaning of life in my spiritual journey and my spare time. When presented with the option to learn it formally at school— of course, I say yes straight away.
It turned out to be a philosophy class. I — coming from a totally different background — never really learned philosophy before. I never thought it would be so interesting. Anyway, this writing is based on the essay I wrote for my final assignment. I enjoyed the thinking process very much, and I hope you will enjoy it too.
I always thought that life is not fair, and it will never be — but I never really considered what ‘fair’ would mean to me. When I finally ask that question, I realised my understanding was pretty shallow. Upon reading the different philosophy authors, I found myself even more indecisive about what is right or wrong. But at least, it gets me thinking. Here, I will review the definition of fairness by three authors: Milton Friedman, Richard Tawney, and John Rawls. They all have different takes on what constitutes a fair shot for all. Is it equal opportunities or perhaps, equal outcomes?
Milton Friedman[1]
Milton Friedman is an American economist and one of the most prominent advocates of free-market capitalism. His idea of equal opportunity is quite simple. In his own words, equality of opportunity means “Une carrier ouverte aux talents — a career open to the talents”. There should not be any arbitrary obstacles that prevent people from achieving positions that their talent fits them for. Only one’s abilities and merits shall determine the opportunities available to them, not irrelevant characteristics such as sex, race, birth, religion, colour, or nationality.
He is very much opposing the idea of equality of outcome, after all, he is a libertarian. He said that life is not fair. There is nothing fair about Muhammad Ali’s talent in fighting or Marlene Dietrich’s beautiful legs. He furthermore argued that the world will be boring if everyone is born with the same talents and the same capabilities. “What kind of world would it be if everyone were a duplicate of everyone else?”
Equality of outcome limits personal liberty and removes the incentives for people who strive to be the best (since everyone will end up at the same place with everyone else anyway). He made a really good point that using force to achieve equality will only destroy freedoms. Even when the force was introduced with good intentions, it will end up at the hands of people who will use it for their own interest.
In the end, it is almost impossible to define what is fair, let alone fair shares for all. So perhaps we shall not try to define it and let the market decide what is fair.
Richard Tawney [2]
Richard Tawney is an English historian, socialist, and prominent figure in higher education. He defines equality of opportunity as not only the absence of disabilities but also the presence of abilities. My interpretation of his theory is that it is right to advocate an open opportunity for all — that everyone should have the same opportunity — but it is wrong to stop there. Stopping there would mean that only a few privileged people would be able to access it. It is not just the availability of an open road, but also an equal start for everyone.
He argues that providing equal opportunity for all does not mean that everyone will have the same capabilities to utilise it. This also relates to Amartya Sen’s notion of substantive freedom in his capabilities approach [3]. Sen’s capabilities approach recognise that everyone has different ‘conversion factors’. Not everyone has the same capabilities to convert the available opportunities that they have into something they value. Some people have a handicap, while some might not have the right resources. Sen highlighted that this could also refer to the inequality of capabilities in lights of social disparities.
In Richard Tawney’s word: It is an equal opportunity of becoming unequal. Effective freedom on paper is — most of the time — restricted in practice. We think it is equal, but in reality, it is not. It is wrong to assume that economic freedom is sufficient to address the systemic disadvantages produced by social stratification.
John Rawls [4]
John Rawls is an American moral and political philosopher. He is most famous for his theory of ‘Justice as Fairness’. He prescribes two basic principles of justice.
- Everyone should have equal rights to the most extensive basic liberty.
Basic liberty is, for example, freedom of speech, the right to vote, freedom of thought, and others. For him, these basic liberty are non-negotiable. No government or no other bodies can amend or violate such rights from individuals.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged to the point that they are both: a)of everyone's advantages and b)equally open to all.
What it means is that John Rawls agrees that the distribution of wealth and income does not have to be equal. As long as the inequalities do not make anyone worse off than before (i.e. for everyone benefits) and the position of authority (i.e. the one that decides the level of inequality) is accessible to all, then it is fine. It is just.
So, my interpretation of him is that what constitutes equality of opportunity is not just equal rights but also an equal effective chance of success. I’d say John Rawls is offering a middle path of both opposing views. He provides a more methodological way of ensuring fairness and equality. There are certain rights that are basic and inalienable, but he also stresses that inequalities are inevitable. As long as there are democratic societies and inequalities are for the benefit of all, then it is still fair.
I found myself agreeing with each author every time I reread them. I think it is indeed hard to define fairness. I am probably leaning towards Richard Tawney’s — there are systemic disadvantages that many people face in life. Until that is all gone (which is probably unlikely to happen anytime soon), simply opening up opportunities is not enough.
I wanted to end this article with the flute experiment presented in Sen’s excellent book, The Idea of Justice (citation below). There are three children, Anne, Bob, and Carla. They are quarrelling about who should get the flute that was made by Carla. Anne argues that she is the best musician, it would be unjust to give the flute to someone who does not know how to play it. Bob claims that he is the poorest. He does not own any toys, and hence, he would derive the greatest happiness from owning the flute. Carla points out that she is the one who has diligently working to make the flute, and therefore, she is entitled to her own fruits of labour.
Who would you give the flute to?
[1] Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. (1980). Free to Choose. London: Secker and Warburg.
[2] Tawney, R. (1931). Equality. London: G. Allen & Unwin.
[3] Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. London: Allen Lane.
[4] Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
I have written a full-length essay on an ‘imaginary’ conversation between the three authors debating about what constitutes ‘fair shots for everyone’. Feel free to reach out if you might be interested in reading more about it!
Originally published at https://www.linkedin.com.
