In "A Question of Fairness", I mentioned briefly that the word "fair" is almost worthless as it means so many different things to different people. Well, that isn't quite accurate. Such protean terms -- "fair", "just", "equitable", "right", "good" and so on -- do have one very specific purpose, and are quite useful for a specific group. For those who want to obfuscate an argument, these terms are their best friends.

It is an ancient strategy, saying thing sin such a way that one audience hears one thing and another audience the other¹. But for those of us who lived through the election of 2008, it is hard to think of this strategy without associating it with its most perfect exemplar, who currently sits in the White House². As I explained in "The Candidate as Inkblot" (and in "Expectations"), way back during the primary season, Obama found the perfect way to campaign. He basically said nothing. Or to be more precise, he used these amorphous words, which could mean anything to anyone, stringing them together in such a way that they sounded good, produced a warm glow in his audience, but provided no details, allowing the audience to just assume that his beliefs were the same as theirs³.

But, if he is the most successful crafter of vague words, Obama is hardly the only one. For decades we have faced people whose arguments rest upon vague understanding of such terms as "justice" and "equity" and "fairness". Which is the reason I bothered to write at all.

You see, we need to be very careful not to get drawn in to such arguments. All too often, we will be confronted by someone trying to show the free market is "unfair" or lacking in "justice" and, rather than just ignoring him, or refusing to recognize the terminology⁴, we will try to prove the free market is "just". And, as soon as we do so, the other fellow, lying in wait, will suddenly shift to a different meaning of "just" or "fair", and spring his well-prepared "gotcha", "conclusively" proving the injustice of the free market. And, because the audience is usually not terribly savvy in the way of verbal misdirection, such sleight of hand more often than not convinces them that the free market really is exactly as he presents it.

We need also beware of the opposite side of the coin, the use of vague pejorative terms, instantly casting doubt on an act without having to prove anything is wrong. For instance, the tendency to describe as "exploitation" any hiring of labor which pays less than the US minimum wage, regardless of local conditions. (cf "Exploiting Workers?",  "Exploited Labor") It is a cheap ploy, but effective. After all, who is not opposed to "exploitation"? And, as soon as we try to refute it, we are caught, because to argue that a specific practice is not exploitation, we have to tacitly admit exploitation exists and does occur in other cases.

What we need to do is to refuse to bite. It won't win us any dueling sound bite arguments, as it will take more than 30 seconds, but in the long run it will be the best solution. When confronted with terms such as "fair" or "just", or their opposite number "exploitation" and "plunder" and so on, we need to demand an explanation of precisely what the term means. Doubtless the opposite side will deflect, attempt to say "everyone knows" the meaning, or even try to turn it on us by saying "see, conservatives don't know what 'fair' means", but if we keep asking, sooner or later they will be forced to define their terms. And once they do that, we will have won. Without vague, ill-defined terms, allowing them to use "fair" to mean one thing in one context and something else in another, those used to arguing with protean terminology will be at a tremendous disadvantage.

Then again, I don't know how many will accept my suggestion. Sadly, some on the right have fallen into the same practice as those on the left, using their own protean terms, mostly ethical ones⁵, to do precisely the same thing⁶. So we may find that fighting against the use of ill-defined terms may be opposed by as many on the right as the left. Still, in the long run, it is best for every one, at least everyone interested in honest dispute and finding the truth⁷, if we know the terms about which we are debating.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.  Facing the armies of the Emperor Constantine, the Emperor Maxentius asked the keepers of the Sybilline books what the outcome would be. Their response would do a politician proud: "The enemy of Rome will be defeated."

2. To give credit, or infamy, where due, the late Yasr Arafat came up with the most inventive version of this, saying, in English, that eh was happy to coexist with Israel, while saying, in Arabic, that he would drive the Jews into the sea. Unfortunately for him, there exist people who speak both languages. But I have to give him credit for trying something novel.

3. I thought at the time that he would stumble during the general election ("The Obama Hangover"), that when forced to give specifics he would end up alienating those who had projected their beliefs upon him. But I had not considered how compliant the press would prove, and he managed to make it all the way to the White House before anyone managed to pin him down to specific details.

4. I know how hard it can be to refuse to be drawn in. I have myself been guilty of both arguing such points, despite knowing better, and even writing essays using the dangerously shifty terms. I suppose, if well and clearly defined, they can be safely used, but, in general, as they are such ill-defined words in most minds, I think it best to simply refuse to accept terms such as "fair".

5. Those on the right using such maleable terms tend to pull off their version of the "gotcha" by using ethical terms in a vague, general sense and then suddenly shifting to a very specific, idiosyncratic Christian interpretation of the same term. It is very similar to the left wing tactic of using "fair" or "just" in a general sense, only to shift to a peculiar definition drawn from some socialist socio-economic theory.  The right wing use tends to seem clumsier, but only because we are more used to socialism than Christianity in academic dispute, because of the modern academic antipathy to religious expression.

6. I didn't mention it above, but there are also those on the right who misuse "fair" and "just" the same way the left does, though they tend to limit it solely to issues of foreign trade. (See postscript for some links.)

7. Obviously those who have an interest in concealing their beliefs and goals will not benefit form open and honest inquiry. But very few of them would admit that is their goal, as almost everyone professes to be interested in the truth, no matter what the reality. So, even if all parties involved are outright liars, the need to maintain a public facade of honesty should be enough to shame them into defining their terms. Or so I hope.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Yes, I confess I have, from time to time, used the very words I denounce, though in most cases I did so after carefully defining how such words were used. For instance, "fair" meaning "allowing each individual to retain the proceeds of his labor and to dispose of them as he sees fit". (cf  "Fairness and the Free Market") I do not think I have ever used "fair" or "just" without providing some sort of definition, except perhaps in casual conversation. I am far too aware of how much those two terms have been abused by movements spouting jargon such as "social justice", "economic justice" and "fair trade". (cf. "Protectionism", "Has No One Heard Of Lord Say?", "Protectionism Right and Left").