In The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, Jonathan Haidt summarizes the Fairness-Cheating foundation as evolving “in response to the adaptive challenge of reaping the rewards of cooperation without getting exploited. It makes us sensitive to indications that another person is likely to be a good (or bad) partner for collaboration and reciprocal altruism. It makes us want to shun or punish cheaters.” Haidt points out that liberals tend to view fairness in terms of equality while conservatives tend to view fairness in terms of proportionality.
Haidt’s Rightous Mind book was published in 2011. According to Moral Foundations Theory website, in 2023, a decade’s worth of additional research on MFT led to dividing the Fairness-Cheating foundation into these two foundations:
- Equality – which the website describes as “Intuitions about equal treatment and equal outcome for individuals”
- Proportionality – which the website describes as “Intuitions about individuals getting rewarded in proportion to their merit or contribution
In Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, George Lakoff lists the fairness models shown below. I’ve divided Lakoff’s list into three theme columns. The first two columns show models under their relevant MFT foundation. The third column shows models grouped under a theme I call Legal. Models in the Legal theme imply specified distribution rules that parties agree to before the distribution is made. In other words, before playing the game, both players agree they’re playing checkers (Equality) or chess (Proportionality).
| Equality | Proportionality | Legal |
|---|---|---|
| Equality of distribution (one child, one cookie) | Need-based fairness (the more you need, the more you have a right to) | Procedural distribution (playing by the rules determines what you get) |
| Equality of opportunity (one person, one raffle ticket) | Scalar distribution (the more you work, the more you get) | Rights-based fairness (you get what you have a right to) |
| Equal distribution of responsibility (we share the burden equally) | Scalar distribution of responsibility (the greater your abilities, the greater your responsibilities) | Contractual distribution (you get what you agree to) |
| Equal distribution of power (one person, one vote) |
Notice that all 10 models are fair individually, and that all 10 contradict each other; in other words, if one model is considered fairest, the other nine become unfair. That’s why contracts and rules specify which model should be used in a situation. Unless all parties agree to use the same model (definition) of fairness, there will be accusations of cheating.
Haidt’s research indicates liberals tend to favor equality and conservatives tend to favor proportionality. I want to emphasize the word tend is important in his statement. The same person may prefer a model from different themes depending on the situation. As a personal example, I believe all humans deserve equal opportunity (Equality), but we each have a scaler distribution of responsibility in what we do (Proportionality). In terms of outcomes, I support scalar distribution when all parties are equally capable and need-based fairness when parties are unequal in their abilities.