Defending the West: The Instinct for Fairness
Chapter 2 - The Instinct for Fairness
“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others.”
Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments
If hierarchy explains our drive to dominate others, fairness explains how we judge the use of that power. Human beings are always attentive to how resources are distributed. Any parent knows how quickly children react when someone takes more than their fair share, when rules are bent for the favored, or when someone’s efforts go unrewarded. That reaction is not something we are taught. It appears early and strongly, indicating that it is linked to our deeper instincts.
Behavioral economists have demonstrated this with an experiment called the Ultimatum Game. In this game, one participant receives a sum of money and is asked to divide it between themselves and another participant however they choose. The second participant can accept the offer, in which case both receive the proposed shares, or reject it, in which case neither receives anything. From a strictly self-interested perspective, accepting any nonzero offer would seem rational. However, across different cultures and income levels, participants often reject offers they perceive as unfair, even if it costs them money. They are willing to accept a loss to punish what they see as unfairness. This reaction reflects our innate sense of fairness.
Children display the same instinct. Two siblings who get unequal dessert portions protest immediately, not because the smaller portion threatens their survival, but because the unfairness conflicts with their expectations of what a fair division should be. In classrooms and workplaces, people accept strict standards when those standards are enforced equitably. Resentment arises when favoritism becomes obvious. The intensity of these reactions shows something deeper than personal preference. It reveals our natural sensitivity to unfair treatment.
The same pattern appears at the national level. Citizens may accept wealth disparities if they believe the wealthy person’s success was earned. Public outrage increases when it’s implied that an advantage was obtained through special access or nonpublic information. Revolutions rarely happen only because of inequality. They happen when that inequality is seen as unfair or illegitimate.
This instinct didn’t develop by chance; early human survival relied on cooperation. Hunting large animals required coordination and trust. Gathering food and caring for children demanded shared effort. When one member took more than they contributed, the burden on others increased, making the group weaker. Bands that allowed freeloaders were less stable, while those that enforced contribution lasted longer. Fairness in that context helped protect group survival.
Most people do not want identical results. They value consistency in how results are achieved. A skilled craftsman earning more than an apprentice does not cause resentment when standards are clear and based on merit. Resentment occurs when progress seems unrelated to contribution, or when those in privileged positions shield themselves from accountability or take more than they deserve. Fairness relates to the balance between rewards and contribution, not the removal of differences as some might suggest.
Jonathan Haidt, in The Righteous Mind, describes fairness as a fundamental moral foundation that influences human judgment. Appeals to justice are compelling because they tap into our deep instincts about reciprocity and protection. Framing a policy as a remedy for an injustice creates a sense of urgency. Once an issue is seen through these moral lenses, disagreement narrows because opposing it can seem like endorsing the injustice. Movements across the political spectrum try to label their causes as just because it activates these instincts.
Yet, the instinct for fairness does not define what is fair. Thomas Sowell, in The Quest for Cosmic Justice, argues that the desire to reduce disparities can confuse equality of opportunity with equality of results. Our instinct for fairness warns us that something feels wrong, but it doesn’t specify which standard has been broken. One person might see fairness as applying neutral rules equally. Another might see it as ensuring equal outcomes across groups regardless of ability. Both claim justice, but they mean very different things. This disparity fuels many conflicts in today’s world.
The tension between process and outcome clarifies this disagreement. When rules are applied consistently and transparently, differences in results may reflect variations in effort, ability, risk tolerance, or choice. Many people accept such disparities when the process seems fair. When focus shifts to consistency of outcomes across groups, pressure grows to change results directly. Achieving uniform outcomes often involves changing standards and expanding administrative discretion. Each change increases the power of those who decide what is fair for others and reduces the power of those impacted.
What has occurred in education under the guise of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) illustrates this perfectly. A system that assesses students using consistent criteria, such as standardized testing, emphasizes procedural fairness. Progressing from one grade to the next based on passing grades also indicates demonstrated increasing competence. When performance gaps persist, DEI supporters argue that neutral standards are the cause of unequal outcomes across racial or socioeconomic groups. In response, grading scales or admissions criteria are adjusted to reduce these disparities. Although these changes can lead to more uniform outcomes, the true meaning of achievement has been distorted.
Declines in literacy and numeracy among graduates in school districts that have lowered academic standards to promote more uniform outcomes across groups highlight this concern. Students are now graduating with minimal ability to read, write, or do math, but the DEI goal of uniform graduation across groups is now achieved.
Employment policies show similar DEI pressures. A company that promotes employees based on measurable performance can defend its merit-based process as fair. However, when demographic gaps appear in the results, DEI advocates often push to create a more representative balance. Hiring systems expand, oversight increases, and compliance demands grow. While the stated aim is fairness, the real effect is to move authority from managers to central administrators. In fields where competence directly impacts safety, professional organizations have warned that these changes must not threaten safety.
None of this implies that injustice is imaginary. Our innate sense of fairness is essential because, without it, corruption would spread easily by those seeking to exploit others. The risk occurs when fairness becomes disconnected from objective standards and is primarily defined by those who set the rules. When ideas of justice are altered to benefit certain individuals, fairness is transformed into a tool in the power struggle.
Fairness, therefore, operates in two ways. It prevents exploitation by promoting our intolerance toward corruption. However, it can also be used to justify increased control when the boundaries of what is considered fair are flexible. The instinct alone does not determine which version of fairness will win; otherwise, we would not have the disagreements we do today.
Human nature includes both the desire to progress and the expectation that progress should be justified. We compete for status, yet we object when someone’s status seems unearned. We form alliances, yet we resent it when insiders misuse them.
Fairness explains why claims of injustice resonate so strongly, but it does not determine what justice requires in every situation. When it depends only on emotion or shifting consensus, it becomes unstable. If it is based on consistent principles, it can limit power instead of increasing it.
Instinct alone cannot serve as that anchor. If the drives for hierarchy and fairness are inherent to human nature, the next question is: what framework can sustain both over time without allowing either to be used to dominate others?
Copyright © 2026 by Michael Lines. All rights reserved.
The complete book, Defending the West, is available for purchase by clicking this link.