Skip to main content

Why the government fails to understand 'fairness'.

Why does the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Mr Ian Duncan Smith get the concept of 'fairness' so wrong? All his policy initiatives he claims are based on fairness. There is little wonder then that he gets so upset when told his policies are not simply unfair but unethical. Some have described them as immoral because of the disproportionate effect on the poorest. It hits him where it hurts, in his softer moral underbelly. Why then does Mr Duncan Smith and his colleagues get it so wrong? I think the answer lies in a common philosophical mistake; the notion that it is ethical to treat people 'equally'.

On so many policies we are asked to compare one group with another. For example, for the 'bedroom tax' we are told it is 'unfair' that differences should exist between those in the private rented housing and in social housing. The problem with this kind of proposition is that it misunderstands 'fairness'. It confuses  'treating people the same' with 'treating people fairly'. The two  are not the same proposition at all.

There is a regularly used example in teaching. I ask the group to tell me whether the statement 'all people are equal' is 'good'. Most often we start with the class saying it is 'good'. But then I point out that we are not equal. We differ in socio-economic condition; we differ in a whole variety of ways. And then we agree that whatever we mean by 'equality' it isn't that people are or should be the 'same'.

The next question we deal with is whether 'all people should be treated equally' is a good statement. Again after discussion we find the concept isn't as good as it sounds. If we are not the same, then how can it be good to treat us as if we were? It is a recipe for unfairness, and this is the problem Mr Ian Duncan Smith and his colleagues fail to appreciate. It is why they have to rush in with concessions and changes in the criteria.

So now, for the 'bedroom tax', we have concessions for those in the armed services or for those fostering. Once the dam is breached it is difficult to hold the line, because there are equally deserving exceptions. Any policy that treats people fairly will seek to account for circumstances. But if the policy is simply to make cuts in spending, taking circumstances into account is unlikely to be a priority. Circumstances requires administration and assessment which costs money.

And here is the problem. The coalitions's policies of cuts in benefits are indiscriminate, which is why they are more likely than not to be unfair, or have unfair outcomes; and it is outcome that matters. If the impact of a policy is likely to be disproportionate on some, then it clearly cannot be fair unless there is a good justification for it.

I cannot see much justification for making the poorest poorer, or making them homeless because they have a 'spare room'. It isn't just unfair, it is cruel and heartless. And let's be aware that the 'bedroom tax' isn't simply something on paper. It is real and it will affect real people and families. It reduces the amount they have to spend on food and heating and other necessities. This is why many call it a tax. Pedantic argument about it doesn't address its unfairness.

If Mr Duncan Smith is really so concerned with fairness, then he would do well to look elsewhere for the causes of  unfairness in our society. Making the poorest in social housing pay a price for the shortage of social housing stock fails to address the real cause of any unfairness in allocation of housing.

By their own calculations the Department of Work and Pensions knows that there is a mismatch in the numbers of houses available and those who are likely to have to move from their social housing as a result of the 'bedroom tax'.  So it cannot solve the problem of unfairness in distribution; that some families are living in overcrowded conditions whilst others have spare rooms. You cannot do a direct swap.  It is simply misdirecting the public to argue otherwise. I wouldn't say it was a lie, but it is certainly a deceit.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba