“Every virtue is a mean between two extremes, each of which is a vice.” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book II).
It’s infuriating to me how complex moral judgments are often (and sometimes permanently) left ambiguous. We shouldn’t quit discerning things when it gets complex. Complexity makes things less initially clear, but it doesn’t mean we can’t get to clarity. We just need to fight harder for it. That work can lead to an answer that feels confusing, yet is clear if you hold its bits together. It’s deceptive confusion and complexity doesn’t mean you don’t have an answer.
Fighting for the truth of complex morality requires prioritizing a framework and values. For most of us—if we thought hard enough—some values would clearly rank higher and lower than others (and with some universality across us). Fairness is relative to your chosen framework—and there is a subjectivity in choosing frameworks. But the amount of subjectivity is limited; we can theorize that any framework can be applied to fairness. But, for example, nearly all of us (if we thought about it enough) would be disgusted at a framework that is more overtly cruel than necessary. There’s an often neglected criterion for our morality that’s difficult to measure, which is whether it’s in touch with general human aversions and common moral sense. It isn’t always clear (but it can be). It’s nearly always important. It combats poisonous sophisticated logic, which can justify quite a bit, while simultaneously being out of touch with basic human morals.
I’d like to add as a first item in a criterion for fairness that it should be more relative to imposed condition (e.g. genetic disabilities) than chosen circumstance (e.g. drunk driving). Dworkin argues, “individuals should be relieved of consequential responsibility for those unfortunate features of their situation that are brute bad luck, but not from those that should be seen as flowing from their own choices” (Sovereign Virtue, p. 287). Otherwise it’s not fairness, it’s equality. Although chosen circumstance can be influenced by inherent condition, it seems more often to lay out paths than to choose for you. Regardless of condition or circumstance we still must be cautious with what we lower our guards to. A mind shaped to corrupt can’t be free to do so. A framework that permits corruption isn’t one that’s ultimately prioritizing fairness.
But fairness can involve harm. And fairness isn’t always perfect. Fairness can be sloppy. But without attempting it, we give our choice away. That’s a scary thing. Tyrants can absorb your indecision and temper your scales for you. And being deeply stuck in indecision—often a side effect of intelligence—can leave you yearning for a tyrant to choose for you. As Hannah Arendt wrote, “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.” (The Origins of Totalitarianism). It’s the growing conviction that what they give you is your own that martyrs our truths (for their cause). Because how could what you eat be rotten? It is your own! And you, you are fair!