Fairness

The words fair and ethical are closely related. On the surface a business transaction may not meet the ideal of being fair, but it still might be, in some sense, ethical, The litmus test here questions whether there is there a tendency of a business to be fair? Take for example the competence pressures on a supermarket. In order to market their products they almost universally lead the buyer to false expectations. What seems unfair, to a small extent, is a traditional practice (see learning curve). The pricing of a product might be confusingly labeled or concealed from view. There might be a special on pears but the supermarket might be trying to unload a bad batch of fruit. What the buyer expects and what they actually get do not actually match. These practices are not totally fair but they are customarily considered ethical because shopping by nature is a acquired skill requiring considerable discernment and experience.

Non-business people do not appreciate the pressures some business people operate under. Business is sometimes a situation when one must swim with sharks and fend off predatory all day. Thus, when a customer cites them for being unfair in a moralistic way it tends to leave the business person speechless, unable to communicate the realities of retail business, to the customer. There is a point where there is a disconnect between the buying public and businessmen and women.

There are degrees of fairness

Misrepresentation by accident or intension would be unfair; or claiming ignorance when the truth was otherwise. A car dealer would know from the feedback of its customers if the many cars it sold were actually on average good cars.

You buy a used car and it is represented as being in good condition. Soon after you buy the car the engine stops working. The engine had never been worked on, a fact that would have been known if a mechanic had inspected the car prior to its sale. Those who sell used cars many times do not want to know the details of the mechanical condition of the cars they sell. They will authoritatively assert that the the car is in good shape but they have no technical knowledge to back up their assertion that the car is in fact in good condition. But the fact of the matter is that being a successful used car dealer is all about knowing the minute details of what you are buying. If one did not know they would soon be out of business.

There is a  litmus test  for determining the fairness of an action. fairness. For, example in a transaction the terms were not totally fully disclosed. The lack of full disclosure in itself is not necessarily unfairness in a practical world, in the ideal world yes. The question here is whether someone is significantly profiting by not disclosing information. In the first example an insurance company does not disclose in a home insurance policy that theft do not pay the actual costs of rebuilding if a house is destroyed by a hurricane. They do not pay the architect, building permits, or the costs of new codes requirements that makes rebuilding very expensive. In the second example, the  contractor bids on a house for a certain amount of money

In the third example

Add a better first example

categorical imperative. Fairness, would you universalize this action and let unfairness affect you in every aspect of your life. Is this then simply a predatory act or an exercise of personal power?

Related terms

Full disclosure

consideration