Fairness is a difficult concept. Taste it and you know soon that it tastes very much different if you or I taking it in the mouth. Let me tell you about Sweden, freely recovered from a story by Troed Troedsson
150 years ago, Sweden was very much an unfairly, segregated and unequal society. It was obvious to all that the lad on the farm could never become a Master of Laws, that housemaid had much shorter life than the princess. Starvation and unbearable living conditions were not considered as injustice, but rather as a picture of how life was created. If you had bad luck in life, you could always hope to be compensated in the afterlife.
Ordinary people were in most cases at the mercy of the reasons of discretion and there was not very big opportunity for a fair and impartial arbitration in cases where they disagreed. Not even when the matter went to court seems to have been very fair by our standards.
In the early 1900s, it became a common perception that so it could not be. The distance between things is the desired state and their fair became larger and clearer. The struggle for fairness hardened and more and more excited by a stronger feeling that we could and should do something about this unfairness difference. An important starting point for the fight was that the vast majority of the people were at the mercy of a few privileged discretion. It was therefore also most solutions focus on how we could minimize arbitrariness. Now we stand on the steps of the welfare state and the modern welfare state. Solutions was about to go from a society that was built on subjectivity and thought for a society based on objectivity and set ground rules.
Collective bargaining agreements and various laws merely unfairness employers the right to exploit and manage people badly. Other laws and norms restricted landowners’ ability to be unfairness or limited entrepreneurs opportunities to cheat their customers. That was Act into law, rule, the rule to protect us against injustice. Laws should protect us from environmental marauders, terrorists traffic, noisy pubs, favoritism, unfair treatment in the courts or unfairly living near oceans and lakes.
We chose the well-being project euphoric dream of the perfect idyllic society to fight unfairness values by removing the space for the values at all. From the very difficult discussion of what is fair and unfairly we got into it much more manageable on what is alike and different. Fair and unfairly is always subjective assessments, equal and different, however, possible to determine objectively reasonable.
In Sweden we have just enjoyed crayfish premiere and perhaps we buy a little less crayfish than we would like to stop in us, simply because they are so ungodly expensive. This can be solved in two ways. The first is the Swedish way from the beginning of the 1800s. Father decides autocratic who should have what. It opens the way for the fair. Those who are hungry, who like most crayfish, the person helping with the dishes, the one that nags at least or something else. If we in the family around the table also agree to our values, we will have the same perception of what is fair – all taken into account. The solution provides the other hand also the possibility of extreme injustice. Housefataher can take all the crayfish themselves or to give the most to the one he likes best. Let us call the solution to the perceived solution and it gives as I said it that determines the possibility of both fairness and injustice.
The second is the Swedish welfare model. We weigh the force and given all opposite part. This in and of itself that little Vera get as much as the big strong Gustaf. This we could solve by a rule that says you get crayfish in the same proportion that corresponds to body weight and may also add factors in the distribution model for how much you like crabs or not. The rules will never be perfect, we will always be factors that are not included in the formula – but which we think should be there. If little Vera drops two crayfish on the ground, it is perhaps reasonable that she gets two new, but if Gustaf does the same thing should bear the consequences of his mess himself? This solution we call the objective and the means that the issue of fairness and unfair goes to those who write the rules, not those who benefit the crayfish.
The Swedish welfare model, a model for much of the world, slipping slowly but consistently increasing over the latter solution. Unbiased reviews of school, objective grounds for waterfront development, objective decision-making system for procurement in the municipalities, objective dismissal rules and objective environmental regulations, traffic rules, rules for international trade and rules of exploitation of or against labor, children, women or the natural resources of the Third World. In area after area replacing people’s ability to subjectivity – and therefore to both fairness and unfair – with the objective structures that will ensure that issues are dealt with equally, whether it is perceived as fair or unfair. We created the objectivity of society. A society where the very question of fairness or unfairness completely overshadowed by the issue of equal or different. People in an objective world will probably object and less and less important in the perfect society, where someone else decides what is equal.
Thus leading objective basis with clear demarcations of missions and roles for staff and politicians who at first did not want to, and eventually cannot see beyond their own everyday little annoyances. Anyone who wants to expand its field of work and therefore do their part of the whole greater must reformulate the problems of larger scale and become more subjective, thus working with values instead of control. Anyone who wants to be less myopic and thus solve the problems that are more extensive needs to become more subjective, that is, working with values, and expand the area within which it operates, thus redefining its part of the whole. Anyone who wants to get better at basic values and valuation work needs to blow up the boundaries of what is perceived by its own operations and develop the capacity for visionary and astute observance of the things that are much further away than we are accustomed.
Society is like life – in an ongoing journey. The journey has been long and permits and the form has probably been worn and has lost some of its freshness and luster. On the trip the way, people have become independent, critical questioning individuals who yearn for that – as the subjective individuals they are – the very basis of their highly subjective values determine what is best for me.
In a thesis in 2010 found that our older people lose their identity when they end up in geriatric care. When we are born, we are quite similar. Since we spend our whole life to develop our own personalities. But when we get old and need care is expected to once again have the same needs.
Research shows that although the business believe that the old should have influence over their lives – it is rarely so in practice. Instead, the routines of elderly care that govern everyday life. The old lose part of their identity. Many believe that the man becomes a social security number on the way to the end station. It is a humiliation and an aggression and smoldering just beneath the surface of many elderly. Policy believe that new tax-funded money to local governments and new rules for what is fair care to calm the emotions. Instead of allowing a greater degree of subjectivity in the welfare model, that is, evaluative and liked people.
Objectivity Society disadvantages become more apparent the more individuals to develop as individuals and can only be combated with a retention of the right to be just an evaluative and thought man, being a subject – one that is subjective.
Condition for a sustainable society is minimal social divisions, where all the opportunity to develop and grow based on its highly subjective points of view. We need standards and rules that eliminate arbitrariness and unequal conditions, so in that respect I share the view of a more equitable distribution of growth and prosperity. 1800’s discretion is not the way to go. Neither 1900’s objective of universal welfare model is the solution. So we must look ahead and combine the best of both worlds, subjective fairness with objective equality.