::::::::
1) An interesting OpEd article about fairness appeared in The New York Times on December 13, 2008:< click here >
The author, Gail Collins, focuses on fairness--a moral concept at the basis of many political considerations. Here are examples of unfairness:
*) Assembly line workers in one company get more dollars per hour, on the average, than in another company.
*) Some states receive more federal help, with respect to paid taxes, than others.
*) Some financial institutions are "bailed out" by a government while others are not.
*) Lower level bank workers lost jobs while "a lot of the Wall Street fat cats got to keep their golden parachutes."
*) "The autoworkers' jobs are said to be "more important" than jobs of home builders or waitresses.
Complaining about unfairness, according to Collins, is easy; even animals are often upset by unfairness. The real challenge "is to get past the quid pro quo and try to focus on the common good."
2) The "quid pro quo" and "for the common good" considerations are expected to guide our leaders. We do not need leaders guided by selfishness and greed.
Are the "quid pro quo" and "for the common good" considerations in conflict with each other? I do not think so. A perfect egalitarian society is practically impossible and a pragmatic balance between the two approaches is unavoidable.
And what attitude should one have toward selfishness and greed? How much of it, if any, is acceptable? This is an old topic. Selfishness and greed are commonly recognized as part of human nature. What is usually condemned is not selfishness per se, but the negative consequence of selfishness. The golden rule, "that which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow" is well known. It is not difficult to find examples of greedy industrialists, or politicians, contributing to the common good. In fact the "common good" can be interpreted as "good for me and good for others."
And what about the "quid pro quo" when it does not contribute to our common good? I am thinking about trying to distribute the available 700 billion dollars equally among those who suffer from the current recession. Would this be desirable? I do not think so.
