Philosophy Blogs

Experiments in Philosophy
a Band of Philosophers
Saints and Scoundrels
John Portmann
The Metaphorical Mind
Christopher H. Ramey

Torn Between Left and Right

By Joshua Knobe on June 11, 2008 in Experiments in Philosophy

Suppose that one person happens to be born with more talent than another and is therefore able to accomplish more with the same effort. Will people think that it is fair for this person to make more money?

At first, it may seem that the answer is obvious. Some people are more to the right of the political spectrum, others are more to the left. Those who are more to the right will say that the person who accomplishes more deserves to make more money, while those who are more to the left will say that it would be more fair for the two to receive equal pay. freiman picture

But perhaps things are not as simple as they seem. A new experimental philosophy study by Chris Freiman and Shaun Nichols points to an interesting new angle on this traditional debate. Freiman and Nichols gave subjects precisely the question at the beginning of this post -- but with a twist. Subjects were randomly assigned either to receive 'abstract' question or a 'concrete.'

Subjects who had been assigned to receive an abstract question were asked:

Suppose that some people make more money than others solely because they have genetic advantages.

Please tell us whether you agree with the following statement:

- It is fair that those genetically-advantaged people make more money than others.

Meanwhile, subjects who had been assigned to receive a concrete question were asked:

Suppose that Amy and Beth both want to be professional jazz singers. They both practice singing equally hard. Although jazz singing is the greatest natural talent of both Amy and Beth, Beth's vocal range and articulation is naturally better than Amy's because of differences in their genetics. Solely as a result of this genetic advantage, Beth's singing is much more impressive. As a result, Beth attracts bigger audiences and hence gets more money than Amy.

Please tell us whether you agree with the following statement:

- It is fair that Beth makes more money than Amy.

Surprisingly, subjects who were given the abstract question said that it was not fair, but subjects who were given the concrete question said that it actually was fair! In other words, it seems that each individual person is torn between left and right. People seem to have a kind of leftist intuition in the abstract but to move to the right when they turn to more concrete cases. Perhaps the differences we observe between the views of different individuals are due in part to the degree to which they hold on to this abstract principle.

Share/Email

Comments

left=abstract?

Submitted by Matthew Hutson on June 11, 2008 - 10:01am.

That fits with George Lakoff's argument that liberals rely on the ideals of the Enlightenment, using rationality to solve problems, while conservative take a more embodied perspective, relying on visualization and personal experience.

Or, the left/right dichotomy could be unrelated to the abstract/concrete dichotomy; there are other factors at play, such at the caretaking vs hands-off approaches to governance (also touched on by Lakoff, incidentally.)

Does Art Matter?

Submitted by Robin Hanson on June 12, 2008 - 4:19pm.

I suspect results for a concrete example on something other than art, such as working a loading dock, might be different.

Why is this about left and right?

Submitted by Michael Giberson on June 12, 2008 - 8:48pm.

Do Frieman and Nichols introduce the left-right political interpretation? I don't immediately see that interpretation. Nothing about policy implications is inherent in the presentation.

Rather, it could just be a question of applying the mental schema for fairness, which generally requires a balancing of things and a consideration of whether the output is justified by the input. In the abstract case the subject is asked to balance a random genetic 'gift' and a positive reward of more money. Considered as a fairness issue, an unearned gift does not merit a positive reward.

In the concrete case, the subject is give the chance to mentally balance the positive reward against an actual positive service provided. Even though the concrete case is just an elaboration which fully fits inside the abstract case, in the concrete case the subject is able to view the higher quality performance of the one singer as something which can merit the positive reward.

Contrary to Robin Hanson, I don't think art has anything to do with the result. I think we'd get the same result in a concrete case with a bigger, stronger dockworker - due solely to genetic endowment - getting paid more.

Their difference in ability

Submitted by Brad on June 20, 2008 - 11:56pm.

Their difference in ability given to them is unfair, while the difference in what other members of society reward them appears to be reasonable given the circumstances.

To put this in another context, look at the laws of probability. The probability of X and Y is equal or less than the probability of X, _given_ Y. In terms of fairness, the whole story of ability and reward is unfair, but _given_ the background of their differing abilities, it is fair that they receive differing rewards.

Whereas X is unfair, and X&Y unfair, Y given X is fair. It would seem that in the "abstract" scenario, we are told that the fairness of X determines the fairness of X&Y, which is false. ("because they have genetic advantages") In the "concrete" case, we are given explicit description of the non-genetic factors involved in the rewards they got, which tells us correctly that X and Y are independent.

Ambiguous question?

Submitted by Dan on June 26, 2008 - 3:50pm.

Did Freiman & Nichols do anything to verify that subjects were interpreting the abstract case how they wanted them to? Some subjects might have thought that people making more money "solely because they have genetic advantages" meant being paid more because of irrelevant genetic differences. That means that they wouldn't have thought that the abstract description was referring to cases like the concrete Beth & Amy case, where genetic advantages lead to better work which leads to higher pay.