Parker Potter is a former archaeologist and historian, and a retired lawyer. He is currently a semi-professional dog walker who lives and works in Contoocook.

“Dad, dad,” Billy exclaims, “Tommy gets to stay up until 10 o’clock, but you’re making me go to bed at nine. That’s not fair!”

How many times have parents with more than one child heard something like that? But is there actual unfairness afoot in the situation that has Billy so worked up?

If Tommy is a couple of years older than Billy, or if Billy is getting over a bout of the flu or has to get up earlier than Tommy so that he can do his paper route, then the different bedtimes are probably just common sense and good parenting rather than a mortal threat to truth, justice, and the American way.

My point is that the concept of unfairness may not be quite as broad as we often take it to be. Not every misfortune or unfavorable situation we encounter is a manifestation or a result of unfairness. If Billy and Tommy are not in similar positions in all relevant respects, then their parents are not acting unfairly by imposing different bedtimes.

Billy’s claim of unfairness only has a leg to stand on if he and Tommy are similarly situated but treated differently for arbitrary reasons or for no reason at all. Billy could also make a case for unfairness if his parents told him he could stay up until ten if he took the trash out, but then sent to him to bed at nine, even though he did take out the trash.

Treating similarly situated people differently for no good reason, or for a manifestly bad reason, or failing to abide by agreed-upon rules of conduct, those are my definitions of unfairness. I have no trouble concluding that it is unfair that in our country today the color of a person’s skin accurately predicts the likelihood that he or she will be pulled over by the police in a pretextual traffic stop.

However, as important as it is to recognize and resist unfairness whenever we see it, it is also important to recognize the boundaries of the concept of fairness. Here’s why. Fairness is a core American value, and fairness is often played like a trump card in political conversations. If you can successfully brand a position you oppose as “unfair,” then you win; who could possibly favor unfairness over fairness? But used this way, as an argument winner, the concept of fairness becomes a conversation stopper, and with most knotty issues, we need more conversation — real conversation — not less.

Take, for example, the issue of taxation. People on either side of many different taxation arguments try to portray their position as the fair one and the other side as unfair. But in those arguments, principles of fairness are pretty difficult to apply.

In the context of having the wealthy pay “their fair share,” President Biden said in his State of the Union address that it is unfair for a billionaire to pay a lower tax rate than a school teacher or a firefighter. Others have countered that argument by pointing out that a very large percentage of U.S. income tax revenue comes from a very small percentage of high-income taxpayers. So what, exactly, is a fair share? In the end, I fear that the idea of fairness may be more of a distraction than a useful tool in conversations about how to structure our federal income tax system.

At the local level, I worry that bringing the idea of fairness into conversations about taxation is equally unhelpful. We all know the consequences of our state’s heavy reliance on local property taxes. Older people on fixed incomes find themselves unable to afford their ever-increasing property taxes and are forced to move out of homes and communities where they have lived for decades. That is, beyond doubt, a deeply unfortunate situation. But is it unfair?

Rather than couching our conversations about property taxes in terms of fairness, which can lead to rigid thinking and dug-in positions, we might be better served by moving our conversations from the high ground of lofty principles to some lower ground where we might be able to make some progress.

There, instead of asking whether reliance on property taxes is fair or unfair, right or wrong, we could look at the various ways that reliance on property taxes shapes our communities and ask whether we are satisfied with those consequences. I just don’t know whether, as a philosophical matter, it is unfair to rely on a tax that disproportionately burdens property owners on fixed incomes, but I sure do know that I don’t like seeing such people forced from their homes.

Engaging in conversations on the lower ground of practical consequences, of cause and effect, may be more productive than a rush to figure out what is fair and what is not.

]]>