People disagree persistently about what makes inequality fair

Evidence

An important result from this experiment, and numerous other experiments we have conducted with coauthors (Cappelen et al. 2007; 2010; 2011; forthcoming), is that there is considerable pluralism in the fairness views that motivate the participants; we consistently find a nontrivial share of participants who choose in accordance with each of the three fairness views. There appears, in other words, to be considerable disagreement about what are legitimate sources of inequality in distributive situations. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 325

Categorization

• QUESTION: If fairness views are plural and stable, how do societies coordinate on a single moral-religious framework at all? This bears on why religions standardize one fairness standard.
• XREF: Connects to the reading purpose: if merit and luck produce different perceived-fairness outcomes, the fumi-e/partner-choice mechanism may target which fairness view dominates, not just whether apostasy occurs. — connects to: Equality-as-salient-point cannot explain unequal fair distributions — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 615; People accept large inequalities they judge as earned or deserved. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 712; Fairness in economic games tracks perceived entitlement rather than raw contribution. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 467 (+6 more)

Related

• Shared fairness intuitions cannot explain distributive variability when beliefs and situations are held constant. (similarity 0.88)
• Equality-as-salient-point cannot explain unequal fair distributions (similarity 0.87)
• People accept large inequalities they judge as earned or deserved. (similarity 0.85)
• Fairness judgments track each participant’s earned contribution, not just payoff equality. (similarity 0.83)
• Fairness evolved to distribute payoffs by input, not equally. (similarity 0.83)
• Humans pervasively prefer meritocratic benefit distributions. (similarity 0.82)
• Objections to huge salaries stem from perceived contribution, not raw egalitarianism. (similarity 0.81)
• Earned entitlements reshape perceived fairness in resource division. (similarity 0.81)
• Fairness rests on impartiality, not mutualistic cooperation. (similarity 0.81)
• Human fairness means overriding merit to aid the needy. (similarity 0.81)
• Fairness is not reducible to mutualistic partner choice. (similarity 0.80)
• Fairness distributions reflect bargaining power, not just effort. (similarity 0.80)
• Fairness in economic games tracks perceived entitlement rather than raw contribution. (similarity 0.79)
• Seemingly fair outcomes can arise from self-referent loss aversion rather than fairness preferences. (similarity 0.79)
• A preference for fairness can directly favor equalitarianism in cooperation. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Fairness in economic games tracks perceived entitlement rather than raw contribution. #exemplifies (0.78) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 467
• Earned entitlements reshape perceived fairness in resource division. #exemplifies (0.78) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 117
• Fairness evolved to distribute payoffs by input, not equally. #exemplifies (0.75) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 310
• Individuality and universal equality historically arise as twin reactions to inequality #expands (0.75) — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 687
• Individual uniqueness as a value denies equality rather than grounds it #complicates (0.75) — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 690
• Third parties punish inequality even when it does not directly involve them. #exemplifies (0.72) — Ernst Fehr, Third-Party Punishment and Social Norms, 46
• Individualism of equality and individualism of inequality both require large social circles. #expands (0.70) — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 652