Skip to main content

Warsi's appalling response to tragedy

Here we go again. The government misunderstanding the concept of 'fairness', or at least a government minister justifying a cruel policy on the grounds of fairness. This time it is Baroness Warsi in response the sad news story of a grandmother committing suicide because of the impact of the government's 'bedroom tax'. The lady had to pay an extra £20 per week in rent to remain in the home she had lived in for 18 years, and in which as a single mother she had raised her children. It was money she simply didn't have.   Baroness Warsi saw fit to put this tragic consequence of government policy in the context of 'fairness'. It has nothing to do with fairness.

I have explained in a previous article why this concept of 'fairness' is flawed. It is based on the false premise that treating everyone the same regardless of circumstances is fair. It isn't. Quite the opposite. It is very unfair indeed. Justifying suffering or cruelty on the grounds that others are also suffering has always been a false prospectus. Making more people suffer does little to alleviate the misery of those who are already suffering.

If I find one person with a cut finger, it doesn't staunch the flow of blood if I cut the fingers of others. It simply increases the suffering. That is not fairness. What Baroness Warsi is referring to of course is that those in the private rented sector are already being penalised for 'spare' bedrooms. Indeed they are. That is unfair and it doesn't make it any fairer to punish those in the social sector.

There is that old adage: two wrongs don't make a right. It is one that Warsi and her government colleagues need to understand.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

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
7 comments
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to
2 comments
Read more

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown

Post a Comment
Read more