Life’s Balancing Act: Rethinking Fairness in the World

By Ashkan Farhadi

Aug 2025

Abstract

This essay revisits the timeless question of fairness: Do we get what we deserve? While equality is an objective concept, fairness is inherently subjective, shaped by personal perspectives, incomplete knowledge, and cultural context. Absolute equality in life is unattainable, and the claim that the world is definitively fair or unfair cannot be proven. Instead of framing life through the binary of fairness versus unfairness, this essay proposes shifting the narrative toward recognizing the role of life’s balancing acts; subtle forces that mitigate inequality, soften the impact of injustice, and restore meaning in an imperfect world. Belief in such balancing principles does not imply that the world is inherently fair, but it provides a psychological framework that reduces resentment, fosters resilience, and enhances happiness, particularly among the vulnerable and disadvantaged. In this sense, fairness is less about strict reciprocity and more about the dynamic equilibrium of life. By moving from passive spectatorship to active recognition of these balancing forces, individuals may find greater contentment and view life as not absurd, but ultimately worth living.

Fairness in a world that is not fair

I was watching the news the other day when a story about a school mass shooting came on. Someone had walked into a school and indiscriminately opened fire, killing children, teachers, and parents who simply happened to be in his path. The sheriff described the grim and tragic scene, and when a reporter asked about the shooter’s motive, he replied, “I cannot discuss an ongoing investigation.” I thought to myself: this world is not fair.

If we ask around — and in fact, I once did — nearly 80% of people say they believe the world is unfair (Farhadi et al., 2018). They see injustice everywhere and feel they do not get what they deserve. In prior essays, I have posed the thought experiment: if it were up to us to create a fair world, what would we have done differently? (Farhadi, 2023). This essay continues that inquiry, asking an ancient question that has lingered for centuries: Do we get what we deserve? In other words, is life fair?

Here, I explore the many layers of this question and consider whether it can truly be answered or whether we must shift the narrative itself. Instead of remaining passive judges of an unrealistically “fair” world, perhaps we must recognize our active role in the grand scheme of life’s balancing act.

This essay does not attempt to prove that the world is fair — since it is impossible for anyone to prove or disprove such a claim. Rather, it asks whether a balancing act might exist, one that subtly works to mitigate what we perceive as injustice. It also questions whether equating fairness with the idea that “we get what we deserve” is too simplistic, and whether justice has always carried a more nuanced meaning (Nagel, 1979; Williams, 1981).

Justice Beyond Equality: A Historical Perspective

Thus, modern thought formalizes the lesson implicit since antiquity: since no two beings or conditions are ever truly equal, justice must be understood as fairness that orders difference without erasing it.

Ancient Foundations
Even long before quantum physics revealed that no two atoms in this world are exactly alike, people recognized that justice could not rest on equality, since no two people or situations are ever identical. In antiquity, justice was never equated with sameness. Plato saw justice as harmony — each part of the soul and each member of society fulfilling its proper role (Republic). Aristotle gave the classic formulation: justice is proportionality (Nicomachean Ethics). In distributive justice, resources are given not equally but in proportion to merit, contribution, or need. In corrective justice, wrongs are rectified by restoring balance, not by making the parties identical. Cicero later echoed this in Rome: justice is giving each their due (De Officiis). For the ancients, justice meant fitting treatment in light of inherent differences, not erasing those differences.

Medieval and Early Modern Thought
During the medieval period, justice was placed within a divine and moral order. St. Augustine saw a just society as one aligned with God’s will (City of God), while Thomas Aquinas defined justice as the steadfast will to render each their due, integrating Aristotelian proportionality into Christian theology (Summa Theologica). Islamic philosophers such as Avicenna and Averroes similarly emphasized reason and proportionality under divine law.

As the medieval worldview gave way to early modern philosophy, justice shifted toward contracts, rights, and individuality. Hobbes grounded justice in covenants that ensure peace (Leviathan), while Locke rooted it in natural rights such as life, liberty, and property (Second Treatise on Government). Leibniz added a metaphysical dimension with his principle of the identity of indiscernibles, insisting that since no two beings are ever identical, justice must mean wise and charitable recognition of their uniqueness (Discourse on Metaphysics). Rousseau reframed justice in terms of laws applying equally to all, but legitimate only when rooted in the general will of diverse individuals (The Social Contract). Across this long era, justice remained tied not to equality but to rightful order, proportionality, and respect for human difference.

Modern Developments
In the modern era, justice has been recast around fairness and dignity. Kant argued that justice requires treating each person as an end in themselves, never as a means (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals). Utilitarians like Bentham (Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation) and Mill (Utilitarianism) defined justice as promoting the greatest happiness, implicitly recognizing differences in human experience. Marx rejected formal equality in favor of equity, demanding that distribution reflect real human needs (Critique of the Gotha Program). In the twentieth century, John Rawls advanced justice as fairness: equal basic liberties for all, with inequalities permitted only if they improve the position of the least advantaged (A Theory of Justice).

Judgment of Fairness: The Subjective Dimension

Philosophical definitions can only take us so far. In daily life, the judgment of fairness is layered, elusive, and often shaped by incomplete knowledge and personal interpretation. To examine this, we must look at how fairness is judged in practice.

• Different Perspective
  When we consider justice, many factors play a key role. The interpretation of events, the assessment of merit, the degree of intervention, and the eventual outcome all shape how we judge fairness (Kahneman, 2011). What one person sees as “merit” may not be what another recognizes. This wide gap reminds us that fairness is often a matter of personal discretion. What I see as fair could appear deeply unfair from another’s point of view. On top of that, the interpretation of events as good or bad is inherently subjective. People assign value to events based on their beliefs, culture, and experiences.

• Limited Knowledge of Events
  Our understanding of events is often incomplete. While judgment is natural, acknowledging the limits of our knowledge raises doubts about whether we can fairly judge situations whose dimensions we do not fully grasp.

• The Web of Relationships
  The complexity deepens when we consider how merit is shaped by countless conditions and outside influences. Life exists within a network of interconnected relationships. Just as one derives happiness from the well-being of loved ones, one also experiences suffering through their misfortunes. The suffering of one person often impacts many others, creating ripple effects that complicate the fairness of any individual outcome.

• Theory of Mind
  The root of judgment for fairness may lie in theory of mind (Premack and Woodruff, 1978). To understand others, we imagine ourselves in their position and assume they think and feel as we do. Since we dislike certain events for ourselves, we believe they must feel the same. While this ability fosters empathy, it can also lead to misjudgment, as we project our own assumptions onto others. Such inaccuracies distort perceptions of fairness and skew the evaluation of social situations.

• The Game is Not Over
  Events in life are seldom final; they unfold like a chain of dominoes, continuing long after the initiating act. Outcomes shift with time, and what once seemed like misfortune may later appear as blessing (Camus, 1942). For this reason, the jury is often still out when we attempt to judge fairness.

The Life's Balancing Act.

If fairness is so layered and elusive that no one can say definitively whether the world is fair or unfair, perhaps the better question is whether there exists a balancing act — structures within life that mitigate the unfortunate events and is not a vehicle to for equality, but as proportion and order amid difference. These balancing forces may not erase suffering, but they shape a deeper sense of justice in the fabric of life.

• Causality as a Universal Balancing Act
  At the core of existence lies causality: every action has a consequence, and no one escapes the chain of cause and effect. This principle reflects Stoic philosophy of cause and effect (Epictetus, Discourses) but may not always deliver outcomes immediately or visibly, but over time, the unfolding of causes into effects ensures that choices matter. While events may appear unfair, they are never detached from their histories. When we look deeper, we often see the logic and thus the reason behind them. Causality weaves a web of accountability, creating the most universal form of fairness available to human experience.

• The Value of Effort
  Effort as the basis of reward echoes Aristotle’s virtue ethics (Nicomachean Ethics) and modern psychology of perseverance (Duckworth, 2016). Human experience reveals a persistent truth: nothing truly meaningful comes without effort. Success, fulfillment, and growth typically demand labor, perseverance, and sacrifice. By contrast, things that come too easily often lose their value quickly. This relationship between effort and reward levels the playing field. It reminds us that fairness is not in guaranteeing equal outcomes, but in making effort the currency that sustains physical health, mental resilience, and deeper forms of happiness.

• More Is Not Better
  In the world of inanimate objects, more is often better. A faster processors and larger memory always improve a computer. But for living beings, balance does not lie in unlimited accumulation. Moderation aligns with Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean (Nicomachean Ethics) and modern research on choice and well-being (Schwartz, 2004). The very idea of a “happy medium” is an invention of awareness — the recognition that balance can be more valuable than excess. Abundance is often mistaken for advantage, but excess frequently leads to dissatisfaction and imbalance. Wealth, fame, or power pursued without limits tend to generate unintended burdens — isolation, envy, or fear of loss. Moderation, by contrast, creates stability and room for contentment. The balancing act, in this sense, resides in the unseen limits and satiety built into human desire, preventing life from spiraling into unchecked accumulation.

• The Role of Randomness
  Life’s randomness is unsettling, yet it serves as one of the great balancing forces. Randomness as a balancing act links to the problem of moral luck (Williams, 1981; Nagel, 1979). Like a game of snakes and ladders, chance can elevate or humble anyone at any time. Randomness does not align with our conventional sense of justice, but its impartiality prevents anyone from fully controlling the script of life. More importantly, randomness sustains hope: the possibility of improvement for those who struggle is like the warmth of spring in the cold of midwinter. Randomness underscores impermanence and, in its unpredictability, reminds us that balance exists even when fairness is not obvious.

• Happiness as a Trading Balancing Act
  Most of our achievements are only meaningful when they are exchanged for happiness. Happiness, with all its complexity, may be the most important balancing act of all — reshaping our perspective on events and their outcomes. There is no doubt that happiness reframes outcomes (Gilbert, 2007). Many moments of happiness arise not from achievement but from recalibrated expectations. By lowering demands and appreciating what remains, people create balance for themselves even in hardship. This adaptive capacity is a hidden form of fairness that operates within the human spirit.

• Happiness Through Others’ Happiness
  Human beings do not exist in isolation. Our joys and sorrows are deeply tied to those around us. When a loved one thrives, we share in their happiness; when they suffer, we grieve alongside them. This interconnectedness fosters responsibility, nudging us to contribute to the well-being of others, since their joy rebounds back to us. In this way, fairness manifests not as competition for scarce resources but as a web of mutual care that distributes happiness across lives. Unlike material goods, happiness does not obey the rules of scarcity. One person’s joy does not diminish another’s; in fact, shared happiness often multiplies. A parent’s pride in a child’s success, or the collective joy of a community celebration, illustrates how happiness can be expansive rather than competitive. By breaking free from zero-sum thinking, happiness demonstrates a form of fairness rooted in abundance.

• Aging and Death as Final Equalizers
  If beginnings in life are uneven, endings are not. Aging and death stand as universal processes, erasing the hierarchies of wealth, power, or privilege. Death is not a sudden break but the culmination of aging, which slowly prepares us to let go of life. Heidegger believed that mortality is the great equalizer (Being and Time), highlighting this inevitability that equalizes everyone, regardless of starting point. It also infuses time with value, making it the most precious resource we have. In this light, fairness is not found in equal starting lines but in the shared finish line that places all lives within the same cycle.

Conclusion

Equality is an objective concept, while fairness is inherently subjective, shaped by individual perspectives. The reasoning outlined here suggests that although we cannot definitively claim the world is fair or unfair, we may need to change both the narrative and our role in interpreting it. Recognizing that fairness does not arise from equality, and shifting from being passive spectators of fairness in the world to active participants in life’s balancing acts, is an effort to soften the harshness of events that appear unjust and to mitigate life’s inevitable inequalities.

Belief in the existence and function of these balancing forces is not the same as believing that the world is inherently fair. Yet such belief offers comforting mechanisms — a kind of safety net that helps alleviate the negative emotions tied to injustice, especially for the vulnerable and disadvantaged. This essay proposes that balancing acts may operate in subtle, often hidden ways, but they can be seen more clearly through the lens of inner happiness. While the world may never achieve absolute equality, these principles of balance can restore some measure of justice within an unequal world.

Believing in the presence of such balancing acts can reduce resentment and increase happiness (Oishi & Diener, 2014; World Happiness Report, 2023). Even though this belief does not alter external circumstances, it profoundly shapes one’s outlook, fostering contentment and enhancing well-being. In this sense, the world may not be absurd after all — it remains a place worth living. Our own study (Farhadi, 2018) also found that individuals who believe the world is a fair place report higher levels of overall happiness. Thus, revisiting our attitude toward fairness — or at least acknowledging the existence of balancing acts in life — holds the power to transform our inner world into one that is happier and more fulfilling.

References

·  Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean ethics (T. Irwin, Trans.). Hackett Publishing.

·  Augustine, A. (1998). The city of God against the pagans (R. W. Dyson, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published ca. 426 CE)

·  Avicenna. (2005). The metaphysics of The healing (M. E. Marmura, Trans.). Brigham Young University Press.

·  Bentham, J. (1996). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1789)

·  Camus, A. (1991). The myth of Sisyphus (J. O’Brien, Trans.). Vintage. (Original work published 1942)

·  Cicero, M. T. (1991). On duties (M. T. Griffin & E. M. Atkins, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 44 BCE)

·  Duckworth, A. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. Scribner.

·  Epictetus. (2008). Discourses and selected writings (R. Dobbin, Trans.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published ca. 108 CE)

·  Farhadi, A. (2023, June 20). If you were God and wanted to create a fair world, what could you have done differently?https://drashkanfarhadi.com/universal-fairness

·  Farhadi, A., Banton, D., & Keefer, L. (2018). Connecting our gut feeling and how our gut feels: The role of well-being attributes in irritable bowel syndrome. Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, 24(2), 289–298. https://doi.org/10.5056/jnm17121

·  Gilbert, D. (2007). Stumbling on happiness. Vintage.

·  Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Harper & Row. (Original work published 1927)

·  Hobbes, T. (1996). Leviathan (R. Tuck, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1651)

·  Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

·  Kant, I. (1998). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785)

·  Leibniz, G. W. (1989). Philosophical essays (R. Ariew & D. Garber, Eds. & Trans.). Hackett Publishing. (Includes Discourse on metaphysics, 1686)

·  Locke, J. (1980). Second treatise of government (C. B. Macpherson, Ed.). Hackett Publishing. (Original work published 1689)

·  Marx, K. (1970). Critique of the Gotha program. Progress Publishers. (Original work published 1875)

·  Mill, J. S. (2002). Utilitarianism. Hackett Publishing. (Original work published 1861)

·  Nagel, T. (1979). Mortal questions. Cambridge University Press.

·  Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2014). Residents of poor nations have a greater sense of meaning in life than residents of wealthy nations. Psychological Science, 25(2), 422–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613512426

·  Plato. (1992). Republic (G. M. A. Grube, Trans.; C. D. C. Reeve, Rev.). Hackett Publishing.

·  Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(4), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00076512

·  Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.

·  Rousseau, J.-J. (1997). The social contract (V. Gourevitch, Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1762)

·  Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. HarperCollins.

·  Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. Free Press.

·  Thomas Aquinas. (2006). Summa theologiae: A concise translation (T. McDermott, Trans.). Christian Classics. (Original work published 1265–1274)

·  Williams, B. (1981). Moral luck: Philosophical papers 1973–1980. Cambridge University Press.

·  World Happiness Report. (2023). World happiness report 2023. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. https://worldhappiness.report/