Perspectives: Understanding Fairness

The current US debate on the use of torture, what it is, and when or IF it is ever appropriate, demonstrates the differences that exist in how we make decisions. The torture issue involves the same questions as war, the death penalty, law and judgment. It is less about what is humane and more about understanding fairness.

A teacher gives an assignment in school and explains what is expected and when it is due. He also explains that any late papers will be docked a grade for every day it is late. When due date comes a student asks the teacher for extra time because of a family emergency, to which he agrees, but explains that it will be lowered a grade for every day it is late.

When one of a team’s players tests positive for steroids before a playoff game, the team is forced to forfeit its entire season according to the league’s no tolerance policy.

A 19 year old university student who had sexual relations with a 17 year old is charge with statutory rape.

An illegal alien (I guess now called “immigrants without documentation” by those who have a POOR understanding of English) who had been living and working in the country for 5 years, is now married and involved in the community, is seized by officials and immediately deported.

A doctor driving home drunk from a company Christmas party, hits another car and the driver is killed. It is the doctor’s first offense and is charged and given the maximum sentence of 20 years in prison in accordance with the local laws.
Would the execution of the above be considered fair or unfair? How was it determined?

Fairness is about following the laws without prejudice. Therefore the people are protected by law instead of arbitrary judgment. A policemen tops you and charges you for speeding, but cannot provide proof, or refuses to show the measured speed on the radar. The judge denies the charge. Few would disagree that this was a fair judgment.

However, is fairness based on the same judgment when the result is less favorable?
In each of the above, the law/regulation was set and known, each were guilty, and the penalties/judgment given according to those laws. Since the result is less favorable, does that make it less fair? To not attribute the penalty to the offense, to “give them a break,” would actually be UNFAIR according to the definition, which when it benefits is called mercy.

Those who list the above as FAIR make decisions that are just and detached. Those who believe any of the above to be UNFAIR tend to make decisions that are sympathetic and involved. There lies the difference. Meyers-Briggs labels the first group as THINKERS and the second as FEELERS.

Although neither is all right or wrong, thinkers view justice through logic while Feelers through emotions. This difference goes a long way in explaining the divide between most judgments based actions such as war, penalties, and the use of torture. It even explains the differences between Conservatives and Liberals at least in the US.

Those who base their decisions on fact and figures regardless of emotional reaction seek out thinking decision-makers and supporters. These decisions are more about right vs. wrong, best vs. worst, and view pain and suffering as a negative consequence of a justified and necessary action. In fact, in most cases, pain and suffering is the responsibility of the offending party, rather than those who execute the action (in terms of the death penalty, violators force state action).

Those who explain their decisions more about emotion and less about logically seek out more sympathetic voices, which is why groups like Affirmative Action, ACLU, NAACP, and the Teacher’s Union lean more liberal. Thinkers view mercy then as a benefit, while Feelers see it as a right. These decisions are about feelings, pain and suffering, and consequence and view the negative not the responsibility of the offender, but of the executor (in terms of death penalty, violators are victims of state action).

It should be noted that THINKERS and FEELERS can come to the same conclusion. It isn’t the answer that makes the difference but the process.

In terms of “Torture” (whether you consider loud music, caterpillars, and cold floors torture or not), thinkers will consider the cost versus the return (pain of enemy vs. saving American lives), and balance that with the responsibility of the offender who choose to attack the US. The Feeler will consider how they would feel if THEY were the ones being tortured and balance that with responsibility of the victim defending themselves against a US aggressor.

Can you guess what type of decision-maker is the UN?

When approaching these types of decisions, it is important for those involved to first determine an agreed upon definition of fairness before making judgment or distributing mercy.