Daniel Rose: The Pastor Next Door

“That’s not fair!”

“You’re cheating!”

How often have parents heard these declarations from their children? There’s an innate human drive toward fairness.

I love baseball. In my opinion, it’s the best sport. I can’t find anything about it I don’t like. As my friends often say, “How can you not be romantic about baseball?” This phrase perfectly captures the magic of the game for me. Each at-bat is a game in itself, every half-inning its own contest. Each game demands that both teams achieve the required number of outs; there’s no time limit or mercy rule.

Over the years, I’ve come to realize that fairness is at the heart of baseball. The rules and scoring are meticulously designed around this idea. Consider the distinction between a batter getting a hit versus reaching base on an error. This difference is crucial. If it’s a hit, the hitter benefits statistically, and the pitcher’s stats are negatively impacted. If it’s an error, the pitcher benefits statistically, and the hitter is penalized (receiving a statistical out even though they reached base).

There’s even a rule called the “infield fly” rule, specifically designed to prevent the defensive team from tricking the offensive team into a triple play on a routine pop-up in the infield. Baseball, at its core, is all about fairness.

When baseball players are found to be cheaters they face severe penalties. Whether it’s a pitcher doctoring a baseball or a hitter corking a bat, discovery leads to ejection and often suspension. More egregious “sins,” like steroid use or betting, frequently result in lifetime bans. Baseball goes to great lengths to protect the fairness of play. One could argue that fairness is a fundamental principle of the sport.

The Moral Foundation of Fairness/Cheating

Fairness/Cheating is the second set of moral foundations discussed by Jonathan Haidt. He proposes that these moral “taste receptors”—similar to taste buds on our tongue—include:

• Care/Harm
• Fairness/Cheating
• Loyalty/Betrayal
• Authority/Subversion
• Sanctity/Degradation
• Liberty/Oppression

Haidt argues that these foundations operate within our minds, driving our emotional intuitions as we process the world. They function like emotional taste buds. ¹

The concept of fairness/cheating arises from the development of “altruism.” We often think of altruism as selfless acts performed without expectation of return. While it sounds and feels pleasant to experience, true altruism likely doesn’t exist in the way we commonly perceive it.

Social psychologists suggest that altruism develops in species with memory. The recipient of an altruistic act remembers the good they’ve received, and the giver, often subconsciously, expects some form of reciprocity. This is particularly true in relationships with non-kin. While we see something closer to pure altruism in kin relationships, altruistic behavior toward non-kin tends to cease if it’s never reciprocated. Why? Because we possess an innate sense of fairness. If someone consistently fails to reciprocate kindness, we feel they are taking advantage of us—they are cheating. They benefit from our generosity without contributing in return.

For example, if I regularly lend my neighbor my lawnmower, but they always refuse when I ask to borrow their trimmer, any rational person would feel taken advantage of and consider their behavior unfair.

Differing Perspectives on Fairness

Our understanding of what constitutes fairness/cheating varies based on the sum total of our emphasized moral foundations. This difference in understanding can make it challenging for people to comprehend one another’s perspectives.

Haidt provides a helpful illustration in the realm of politics.² Someone with a politically left perspective often views extreme wealth as fundamentally unfair. They observe hardworking individuals struggling financially while the wealthy possess more than they need. To them, it seems fair that the wealthy could easily pay more in taxes to assist those in need, remaining comfortable themselves. This perspective is reinforced by the belief that much wealth is accumulated through the labor of the working poor. For the person on the left, it’s inherently unfair for people to work hard and still face financial hardship.

Conversely, a person with a politically right perspective often sees wealth as earned through hard work and ingenuity. For them, taking what someone has rightfully earned and giving it to those who haven’t worked as hard, aren’t as inventive, or haven’t taken similar risks, is fundamentally unfair. They believe the wealthy create jobs and opportunities for others, and what they’ve earned is rightfully theirs. Taking from them to give to people who haven’t earned it is simply not fair.

As you read these scenarios, you likely felt an emotional response. Perhaps you argued with the paragraph you disagreed with and thought “obviously” in response to the one you agreed with.

This illustrates how the fairness taste receptor can lead to two fundamentally different emotional responses to an issue. When faced with an issue like taxation, both the left and right may cry, “That’s not fair!” When we perceive something as fundamentally unfair, we tend to label the other party as a “cheater,” and as a result, we may experience them as morally repulsive. Who wants to be in a relationship with a cheater? Who can trust a cheater? Is it even possible to find common ground with a cheater?

Bridging the Gap

I’m actively working to understand the different perspectives on fairness held by my friends. I’m finding that if I can identify what they consider fair, I can begin to bridge our positions. This, of course, requires understanding my own perceptions of fairness/cheating, which is challenging because these moral foundations are like the air we breathe—invisible yet essential. Emotional triggers that signal we are navigating the fairness/cheating landscape include anger, gratitude, and guilt. When one of these emotions surfaces, I try to take note and ask myself, “How is fairness being impacted here?”

The next time you’re discussing with someone who holds a different perspective, try to identify how fairness/cheating plays a role in your differing views. It just might create a bridge toward greater understanding and deeper relationships.