Interdisciplinary perspectives on fairness, equity, and justice PDF
Preview Interdisciplinary perspectives on fairness, equity, and justice
Meng Li · David P. Tracer Editors Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Fairness, Equity, and Justice Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Fairness, Equity, and Justice Meng Li • David P. Tracer Editors Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Fairness, Equity, and Justice Editors Meng Li David P. Tracer Department of Health and Behavioral Departments of Health and Behavioral Sciences Sciences and Anthropology University of Colorado Denver University of Colorado Denver Denver, CO, USA Denver, CO, USA ISBN 978-3-319-58992-3 ISBN 978-3-319-58993-0 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-58993-0 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017952058 © Springer International Publishing AG 2017 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Printed on acid-free paper This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Contents 1 An Introduction and Guide to the Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 David P. Tracer and Meng Li 2 The Neural Basis of Fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Peter Vavra, Jeroen van Baar, and Alan Sanfey 3 The Evolution of Moral Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Mark Sheskin 4 Public Preferences About Fairness and the Ethics of Allocating Scarce Medical Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Govind Persad 5 Equality by Principle, Efficiency by Practice: How Policy Description Affects Allocation Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Meng Li and Jeff DeWitt 6 R esource Allocation Decisions: When Do We Sacrifice Efficiency in the Name of Equity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Tom Gordon-Hecker, Shoham Choshen-Hillel, Shaul Shalvi, and Yoella Bereby-Meyer 7 T he Logic and Location of Strong Reciprocity: Anthropological and Philosophical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Jordan Kiper and Richard Sosis 8 F airness in Cultural Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Carolyn K. Lesorogol 9 J ustice Preferences: An Experimental Economic Study in Papua New Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 David P. Tracer v vi Contents 10 Framing Charitable Solicitations in a Behavioral Experiment: Cues Derived from Evolutionary Theory of Cooperation and Economic Anthropology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Shane A. Scaggs, Karen S. Fulk, Delaney Glass, and John P. Ziker Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Contributors Yoella Bereby-Meyer Psychology Department, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beer Sheva, Israel Shoham Choshen-Hillel Jerusalem School of Business Administration and the Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel Jeff DeWitt Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA Karen S. Fulk Department of Anthropology, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA Delaney Glass Department of Anthropology, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA Tom Gordon-Hecker Psychology Department, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beer Sheva, Israel Jordan Kiper Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA Carolyn K. Lesorogol George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA Department of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA Meng Li Department of Health and Behavioral Sciences, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA Govind Persad Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA vii viii Contributors Alan Sanfey Donders Institute for Brain Cognition and Behavior, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Shane A. Scaggs Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA Shaul Shalvi Department of Economics, Center for Research in Experimental Economics and Political Decision Making (CREED), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Mark Sheskin Cognitive Science Program, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA Richard Sosis Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA David P. Tracer Departments of Health & Behavioral Sciences and Anthropology, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA Jeroen van Baar Donders Institute for Brain Cognition and Behavior, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Peter Vavra Donders Institute for Brain Cognition and Behavior, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands John P. Ziker Department of Anthropology, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA Chapter 1 An Introduction and Guide to the Volume David P. Tracer and Meng Li The notion that humans have a taste for fairness, equity, and justice is both pro- foundly empirically satisfying, and troublesome, theoretically. It is comforting to know that “from cooperative hunting to contributing to charitable causes to helping stranded motorists, humans in all societies, industrialized and small-scale alike, fre- quently engage in acts that benefit other unrelated individuals, often at a non-trivial cost to themselves” (Tracer, this volume); in other words, that humans are intensely prosocial creatures. But this same fact is at once problematic for theories of human motivation and behavior. Most theories of human behavior in the social sciences rely upon the premise that we are fundamentally self-regarding maximizers of per- sonal gain. This is alternatively known as the “selfishness axiom” or the Homo economicus model of human behavior (Henrich et al., 2004). Are humans prosocial creatures or selfish maximizers? In this volume, we examine the concepts of fair- ness, equity, and justice from an interdisciplinary perspective. Before we proceed to the various perspectives from disciplines as diverse as neuroscience, psychology, bioethics, and anthropology, this chapter offers a brief introduction to and definition of the terms, concepts, and theories in which much of the work reported in this vol- ume is grounded. It also provides a brief justification for approaching the concepts of fairness, equity, and justice from an interdisciplinary perspective, as well as a guide to the volume to illustrate how its individual chapters fit together to provide some answers to the enigma of human prosociality and our taste for fairness, equity, and justice. D.P. Tracer (*) Departments of Health & Behavioral Sciences and Anthropology, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA e-mail: [email protected] M. Li Department of Health and Behavioral Sciences, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer International Publishing AG 2017 1 M. Li, D.P. Tracer (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Fairness, Equity, and Justice, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-58993-0_1 2 D.P. Tracer and M. Li Theoretical Considerations: Homo economicus and the Axiom of Selfishness In their now classic book on behavioral ecology, Krebs and Davies (1981) con- cerned themselves with the question of why certain behaviors come to predominate among species occupying particular ecological contexts. They proposed that ques- tions about behavior can best be answered using a “functionalist” orientation, that is, by understanding “how a particular behavior pattern contributes to an animal’s chances of survival and its reproductive success” (1981:22). Like advantageous morphology or physiology, behaviors that promote survival and reproduction tend to be passed on at higher frequencies (either genetically or through analogous teach- ing or emulation practices) and will come to predominate until such time as the environment changes in ways that favor some other behavioral propensity. Krebs and Davies conclude by noting that the quest for survival and reproductive success necessarily means that “individuals are expected to behave in their own selfish inter- ests” (1981:22). Similarly, in his now classic book on evolution and behavior, The Selfish Gene, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins noted that: we must expect that when we go and look at the behavior of baboons, humans, and all other living creatures, we shall find it to be selfish. If we find that our expectation is wrong, if we observe that human behavior is truly altruistic, then we shall be faced with something puz- zling, something that needs explaining (1976). Consequently, for almost the past half-century, the “selfishness axiom” has pre- vailed within the natural and life sciences in order to explain the evolution and maintenance of behaviors. A theoretical orientation very similar to that of evolutionary biology has also been prevalent for a very long time in the social and behavioral sciences. For exam- ple, perhaps the best-known quote by any economist is that made by Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations: It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their human- ity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advan- tages (1776). For Smith, services are provided not for the benefit of individual others or one’s own group but in satisfaction of the service providers’ own needs and necessities. This view has come to prevail in economics and is sometimes known as the “Homo economicus” model: “theoretical economists postulated a being called Homo eco- nomicus—a rational individual relentlessly bent on maximizing a purely selfish reward” (Fehr, Sigmund, & Nowak, 2002). It is worth noting that the “selfishness axiom” became pervasive in some schools of anthropology and psychology as well, most notably, in the evolutionary subareas of these disciplines (Henrich et al., 2005). As useful as the selfishness axiom and Homo economicus model of human behavior are for theorizing about the roots of human strategic interaction, empirical evidence from multiple sources has cast doubt on whether humans truly behave in ways predicted by these paradigms.
The list of books you might like
