Fair by Logic or Feeling: A Test of Wisdom

The definition of "fair" according to the Cambridge Dictionary: treating someone in a way that is right or reasonable, or treating a group of people equally and not allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment. Well, that's the ideal. But can idealism always be implemented into practice effectively? The answer is not necessarily yes.

A few days ago, I was chatting casually at a coffee shop with friends. One of my friends told a story about parents who divided their wealth between their two sons. Both sons had their own families, but their financial conditions were very different. The first son was quite wealthy, while the second son was relatively poor. Their parents gave the larger share to the second son. This made the first son feel he was being treated unfairly. He felt his parents favored his younger brother.

This story steered our casual conversation toward the topic of fairness. There were two opinions. First, their parents should divide it equally to be fair. Second, their parents have a sense of fairness based on empathy. This second opinion was caught my attention to write this post because it is in the gray zone between black and white. I think the first opinion could be called "fair by logic" and the second opinion "fair by feeling" (but I prefer to call it "fair by wisdom").

Of the two opinions above, I think the legal field faces the most challenging challenge. Judges must be adept at balancing legal provisions with society's sense of justice. For example: the law states that stealing someone else's property is punishable by five years in prison. Should a thief who steals a loaf of bread receive the same sentence as a car thief? Do you often hear that access to justice is often more difficult for the poor than for the wealthy who can afford expensive lawyers?

Being fair does not always mean giving the exact same thing to everyone (logical fairness), but rather ensuring that everyone gets what they need to succeed (empathetic fairness). Our greatest challenge is knowing when to stand firm on rigid rules, and when to act with empathy to embrace the diversity of human condition. In short: being human, not robot.

In closing, I have a most intriguing question: Does the veto power at the UN hurt the sense of justice for the majority of countries in the world?

Photo by dp singh Bhullar from Pexels with free use license.