Principle No. 4: Be Fair (Part 2)

In order to determine fairness, including just punishment, we need to start by asking the right questions

by Bruce Weinstein, PhD

Thus far in our exploration of the five fundamental ethical or "life" principles, we have looked at: Do No Harm, Make Things Better, Respect Others, and one aspect of the fourth principle, Be Fair.

We now turn to two more ways in which we can evince fairness in everyday life: retributive justice and rectificatory justice.

Retributive Justice and Fairness

Deciding who gets what of a limited amount of goods or services is one aspect of fairness. Judging whether someone should be punished and, if so, in what way, is another. This second dimension of fairness is retributive justice.

A good manager asks, "What's the right way to punish an employee who has done something he or she shouldn't have?" The concerned parent wonders, "How should I deal with my misbehaving child?" Both questions are fundamentally ethical ones, and the most straightforward standard for meting out justice is this: The punishment should fit the crime. Whether a proposed punishment is fitting requires a thorough accounting of the facts, an understanding of the relevant law (if the infraction involves a breach of civil or criminal law), and a commitment to disregarding everything about the situation that isn't relevant.

When a person accused of wrongdoing is punished in a way that seems unfair to him or her, that person is likely to claim discrimination. But is discrimination inherently unfair? No, it isn't, and to this issue we now turn.

Fairness and Discrimination

Universities legitimately discriminate against students whose grade-point averages and SAT scores are below a certain level. Employers discriminate against applicants who lack the requisite knowledge or skill, and that's perfectly acceptable. Single people discriminate against suitors to whom they aren't attracted or with whom they don't share fundamental values, and rightly so. To discriminate is simply to make a judgment based on certain standards or criteria. Discrimination is unfair only when it's based on irrelevant criteria.

What constitutes irrelevant criteria? The answer is, as we saw in last week's column about distributive justice, context-dependent. That is, the standards that are acceptable in one area amount to prejudice in another. It's wrong, for instance, to use the ability to play Scrabble well as a factor in determining who's entitled to rent an apartment, but if you want to compete in Scrabble tournaments, that skill is (and should be) the primary, or sole, determinant of acceptance.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits basing employment decisions on such factors as race, religion, gender, veteran status, and age. Each of these personal characteristics, however, may be a legitimate basis for screening some people in and others out of a group beyond the workplace. Is it wrong to exclude non-Catholics from a Catholic singles mixer? It's hard to see why. If you never served in the armed forces, could you reasonably be denied membership in the local Veterans of Foreign Wars club? Of course. If a personal quality is relevant to the position to which someone aspires, it's acceptable to use that quality as the basis of discrimination. If a quality is irrelevant, it's wrong to use it.

In grappling with what kind of punishment is fitting for a child who misbehaves, an employee who uses a client's account for personal expenses, or a student who cheats on an exam, we must exclude all those considerations that shouldn't play a role in our decision-making.