The Shocking Truth About Fairness¶
Source: The Shocking Truth About Fairness
Date Published: 2026-05-26
Author: Lionel Page (Optimally Irrational)
TL;DR¶
Fairness norms are not universal moral absolutes. They are pragmatic social solutions that, in the long run, reflect the distribution of bargaining power in a given society. Using game theory and historical examples from feudal, slave, and patriarchal societies, Lionel Page argues that what we consider "fair" is shaped by who holds power — not by abstract moral principles.
The Core Example: The Soissons Vase (486 AD)¶
Frankish King Clovis asked for a valuable vase in addition to his fair share of battle booty. A soldier objected: "Thou shalt receive nothing of this unless a just lot give it to thee." One year later, Clovis split the soldier's skull with an axe. The lesson: a social contract has no binding force unless the balance of power backs it up.
"When bargaining power is unequally distributed in society, the prevailing social contract cannot be egalitarian."
Binmore's Game Theory Framework¶
Fairness norms are generic solutions to recurring bargaining problems over rights and duties. Norms can only survive if they are not too far from what people could actually claim using raw bargaining power. Norms that ignore power get "chipped away" by the powerful.
Critique of "False Consciousness"¶
Page rejects the idea that unequal norms are merely elite propaganda. He argues:
- Power is graded — even the weak have residual power (shirking, sabotage)
- Relationships establish a modus vivendi reflecting real power
- Dominated groups rationally accept unequal norms as the best stable deal available
"The shocking truth is that it is not a bug; it is a feature."
Historical Evidence¶
Feudal Societies¶
Tenants demanded a "good lord" who respected customary rights, not abstract equality. E.P. Thompson's "Moral Economy" showed that protests defended traditional reciprocal obligations.
Slave Societies¶
Enslaved people could describe a master as "good" or "fair" within the unequal bargain — adequate food, no excessive violence. Their complaints were within the framework, not abstract rejections of slavery.
Patriarchal Societies¶
Early feminists often argued within the acceptance of hierarchy. Emma Willard (1819) promoted women's education to better fulfil roles as wives and mothers. Even Queen Victoria opposed women's rights.
The Relativistic Conclusion¶
"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."
Page rejects universal moral absolutism (Cicero's "one eternal and unchangeable law"). Fairness norms are like chess rules — they emerged and changed over time. Past societies weren't playing "wrong," they were playing a different game. We can still prefer modern liberal democracy, but as a better equilibrium for our circumstances, not as an absolute moral truth.
Key Takeaways¶
- Fairness norms are equilibrium solutions to bargaining problems, not transcendent moral truths
- The balance of power in a society ultimately dictates what is considered "fair"
- Dominated groups rationally accept unequal norms given their constraints
- Judging past societies by modern standards is anachronistic — each equilibrium served its context
- We can still advocate for better systems, recognizing them as preferable equilibria rather than absolute truths