Ugly fairness

The philosopher Aristotle once defined nothing as “what rocks dream about.” He might have found another word for what some philosophers dream about today. Adam Swift and Harry Brighouse, for instance, have been burning up neurons trying to determine how happy families contribute to social inequality and what should be done about it. Swift’s interview with Joe Gelonesi on Australia’s Radio National reached far beyond its immediate audience when headlines like this hit the internet: “Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?”

Swift’s logic is faultless: (a) Children obviously need parents, and (b) parenting appears to be a source of satisfaction to many adults; but (c) every study and survey demonstrates that children who grew up in stable families have an unquestionable advantage over those who don’t, meaning that (d) families “exacerbate” social inequality. Therefore, (e) egalitarian theorists required “a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people’s children.”

Swift was not talking about “allow” in the state-mandated sense—at least not yet. Along with his colleague Brighouse, his current project is “developing a liberal egalitarian theory of the family.” If that’s your goal, you will inevitably stray down long sterile hallways with no emotional baggage lying around like those toys you’re continually after your 6-year-old to pick up. No clutter here, just piles of data like “familial relationship goods” that can be tabulated and shown to “contribute to the flourishing of family members.” Testing these individual goods against the greater good of social equality offers insight into which familial activities to “allow” and which to discourage.

For example, there’s no justification for spendy private schools. These contribute to “unnecessary inequality” and should be discouraged. On the other hand, the practice of engaging in “bedtime stories activities [i.e., reading to one’s child before bed] gives rise to acceptable familial relationship goods”—presumably because, unlike private schools, bedtime reading is easily within the means of most parents. “You have to allow parents to engage in bedtime stories activities, in fact we encourage them.” (What a relief!)

There’s no justification for spendy private schools. … On the other hand, the practice of engaging in ‘bedtime stories activities gives rise to acceptable familial relationship goods.’

The guffaws and indignant sputters that greeted this interview obscure the fact that Swift and Brighouse are, in their antiseptic way, attempting to defend the family “against cries of unfairness.” That’s why they are observing the habits of successful families with a clipboard in hand, checking off “acceptable familial relationship goals.” I assume they get paid for it, and someday they may have a chance to shape public policy.

If that happens, don’t expect the Fair Play police to kick down your door at bedtime and confiscate Goodnight Moon. Still, it’s a bit jarring to observe the equality parade wandering so far afield that they’re talking about what advantages to allow parents to provide, as if “advantaging” one child automatically “disadvantages” another.

Does that mean there should be no rules to ensure fairness? Obviously not, or no one would get upset about a squishy football used in a Super Bowl game. We need rules, but the rules are for the game. A sports league sets rules for play, not practice. It’s unfair to play a regulation game with a nonregulation football, but Tom Brady can toss deflated balls around the practice field all he wants. The NFL commissioner doesn’t mandate practice times and methods, or determine a budget for each club. Life is the game; growing up is practice.

And even when playing the game, there’s no such thing as a perfectly level playing field—if so, there would be no “play.” While trying to eliminate as many variables as possible, a good coach knows that variables make the game, given how his players respond to them. His goal is—or should be—winning fairly, not fairness itself. If fairness is the ultimate goal, the straightest path is not offering opportunities but curtailing privilege; not elevating but leveling. And that’s no fun.

Email jcheaney@wng.org