Skip to main content

Mr Ian Duncan Smith doesn't understand fairness

What is it that the government doesn't understand about being 'fair'? Mr Ian Duncan Smith calls his reforms of benefits fair. He and the government repeat the mantra. The current system is 'unfair' and needs changing, ipso facto their reforms must be fair. It is a profoundly flawed argument.

I will spell it out for Mr Ian Duncan Smith because it is increasingly clear that he doesn't understand it. You do not create less misery by making more people suffer. I don't know what kind of ethics Mr Duncan Smith works with, but it certainly isn't utilitarian which at least seeks to achieve the greatest benefit for the greatest number.

Mr Duncan Smith says the new 'bedroom tax' is 'fair' because it brings those in social sector housing in line with those in the private rented sector. Gosh, that sounds fair, I hear you cry. Why should one group be treated any different from another?

But lets consider another question. Does it really help those in the private rented sector to impose a 'bedroom tax' on those in the social housing sector? The answer is no, it does not. So we don't actually make the situation fairer by imposing it, we simply make more people suffer. It is a bloody ridiculous argument to consider it fair. Fairness doesn't work like that. If we see a group of people being hurt, we don't address the problem by harming others to 'make it fair'.

I really wonder why I have to say this. The bedroom tax isn't fair because it makes families poorer; it makes them suffer, and many of them are unable to move into smaller accommodation because there is a shortage of available housing. It harms people and doesn't solve the problem it is supposed to address. Therefore it is a flawed strategy. Simply pointing to other people who suffer in a similar way doesn't make it fair. If we are concerned about fairness then we should address the problems of those living in private rented accommodation; that might be fair.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

The secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca , have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together.  Photo by  Sid Balachandran  on  Unsplash For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals.  Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet

Work Capability Assessments cause suffering for the mentally ill

People suffering from mental health problems are often the most vulnerable when seeking help. Mental health can have a major impact on work, housing, relationships and finances. The Work Capability Assessments (WCA) thus present a particular challenge to those suffering mental illness.  The mentally ill also are often the least able to present their case. Staff involved in assessments lack sufficient expertise or training to understand mental health issues and how they affect capability. Because of  concerns that Work Capability Assessments will have a particularly detrimental effect on the mentally ill,  an  e-petition  on the government web site calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to exclude people with complex mental health problems such as paranoid schizophrenia and personality disorders. Problems with the WCA  have been highlighted in general by the fact that up to 78% of 'fit to work' decisions are  being overturned on appeal. It is all to the good that they