Human beings exhibit the concept of fairness some time around the time they turn seven:
In research that should help to chart the origins of human social life, morality and culture, a team has pinned down when humans learn to share.
Children as young as seven are just as likely as adults to do the right thing by their friends, in contrast to kids between three and four, who are almost universally selfish, reports the study carried out at the Universities of Zurich, Switzerland, and Erfurt, Germany.
What is fascinating about the study in the journal Nature, led by Prof Ernst Fehr, is that children do not simply become more generous but develop a clear sense of what is fair and what is not.
Our best friends, dogs, have a keen sense of fairness:
Man’s best friend expects a fair treat for doing tricks, canine cognitive scientists at the Clever Dog Lab in Austria report.
Like humans and chimpanzees, dogs seem to expect fairness in their dealings with humans. When two dogs sitting next to each other complete the same action — shaking paws in this case — but don’t receive the same reward, the jilted dog stops playing along.
“I think it’s an important finding because it goes beyond primates,” said evolutionary biologist Marc Bekoff, author of a forthcoming book on animal morality, Wild Justice, who was not involved with the study. “It calls attention to the fact that animals are a heck of a lot smarter and more emotional than we give them credit for.
The new study, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is part of a growing body of research showing that many social animals, including dogs, wolves and marmosets, have emotions previously considered unique to humans. While biologists have long thought that mammals experience primary emotions like fear, more recent studies have found strong evidence that a range of animals also feel more nuanced, secondary emotions like a sense of fairness.
as most dog owners could tell you.
At least to my untutored eye while there may be agreement that there is such a thing as fairness but there doesn’t appear to be universal standard for what’s fair and what isn’t.
Again to my untutored eye quite a bit of the discussion of Social Security revolves around what’s fair. In 1983 about 90% of income was subject to the payroll tax. That’s declined, largely due to increasing incomes by higher income earners, most of whose income isn’t subject to the tax. Was the situation in 1983 fair while the situation now isn’t, vice versa, or have ideas of fairness changed?
Due to increasing life expectancies Social Security recipients collect benefits longer and on average receive more in total benefits than previous Social Security recipients did. Is that fair? That’s not a universal view of fairness. For example, in their social insurance program the Swedes calculate benefits so that each successive age cohort receives roughly the same average total benefits as the last.
Is our system fair and the Swedes’ unfair? Vice versa? Do we just have different notions of fairness?
I think perceptions of “fairness” are ultimately colored by selfishness. For example, the boomer’s collective view of what’s “fair” regarding social security is much different than my generation.
To fair, I think you need to add affordable. I think that most people understand that circumstances can change. We may not be able to afford comprehensive benefits. If we make those changes openly, and fairly so that they affect everyone, I suspect they will be accepted. We have greatly increased the amount of health care costs we pass on to employees. They seem to have accepted this as necessary because of the affordability issue.
OTOH, I think that the wealthy have become such a privileged group that they will not see it as fair if we go back to the 90% solution.
Steve
steve,
Trying telling a boomer about to retire that we can’t afford the level of medicare and social security benefits they were promised. I doubt they’ll understand nor would they accept any changes.
I’ve been thinking about the concept of fairness as it relates to my seven-year old. I do think that it is an outgrowth of selfishness, as children try to navigate getting their way and come up against rules from which they derive principles to be applied elsewhere. For a child, fairness is supposed to explain good and bad outcomes.
One of the reasons I’ve been thinking about this is that there was an article in last month’s Atlantic from a therapist identifying a new problem being exhibited by young adults. Her thesis is generally that parenting has become more child-focused, more praise-oriented, and more explanatory of rules. Many young adults are accustomed to praise and good outcomes if they do their work reasonably well. Many are ill-equipped for disappointments that occur unexpectedly.
It seems to tie-in to some past discussions here about lack of entrepreneurial spirit. Young people are not accustomed to taking some of the risks in life because of developed expectations of fairness. They generally expect praise and success for good effort and work, not necessarily appreciating innovation, creativity and both good or bad luck.
I don’t see “fairness” as necessarily correlating with generosity. At least at grade school, an outcome is equally fair if both children get an ice cream treat or if both do not. I see “fairness” also as in conflict with principles of “self determination” since fairness is concerned with external conformity.
@Andy- They may not have a choice.
@PD- Age 7 is when kids are supposed to show signs of developing a sense of fairness. This seems to be a hardwired kind of thing. I agree with your general sentiments, but think it goes beyond that. I see that my new hires worry much more about lifestyle than they do working. I sometimes think they regard work as a hobby, but then I am a bit of a hardass.
Steve