Rotary’s Four-way Test 
Part 4: Applying the Four-way Test (continued)
- Is it fair to all concerned?
Having established to our satisfaction that something is true, the next question is whether acting on that truth will be fair to all concerned.
‘Fairness’ means treating a person, or a group of people, impartially in a reasonable way that conforms to accepted rules and standards.
What happens if you conclude that action based on the truth would be fairer to some of those concerned than to others?
In utilitarian terms ‘fairness’ is measured according to what action produces the greatest utility, that is, maximises benefits while minimising harms. An act will be morally justified as ‘fair’ if it delivers the greatest balance of benefits over harms for everyone affected. However, the distribution of benefits might not serve the interests of justice in that some may receive less benefit than they deserve, while others may receive more.
In Kantian terms, action that is fairer to some than to others may not satisfy the Categorical Imperative. You would not only have to be able to will that such action became a universal rule, but also ensure that the fairer treatment of some was not achieved by means of the less fair treatment of others.
In circumstances where fairness to all concerned was not attainable, an ethics of care approach would seek to foster existing relationships and focus on preventing harm to the least powerful and most vulnerable among those concerned. This might include measures to shield them from any harm occasioned by the action, or compensate them for any loss incurred.
Adopting the virtue ethics Golden Mean approach might have at one extreme action fair to no one, and at the other extreme going to such lengths to benefit everyone that the cost of the action required becomes extravagant. The ‘mean’ might be a solution similar to that achieved applying utilitarian logic. The other virtue ethics approach would be to consider what virtues should guide the decision and what a person exhibiting those virtues would do. Pursuing this line of reasoning might also lead to a conclusion similar to an ethics of care approach.
It appears that employing ethical theory may lead you to different conclusions about what action might satisfy the fairness test. In this case, you would have to exercise judgment and select the action that best matched your personal sense of what was fair.
- Will it build goodwill and better friendships?
The third part of the Test evinces an ethics of care approach – the building and preserving of good relationships. It is probably the easiest part of the Test to apply and the answer will usually be clear-cut.
Maximising goodwill and friendship also fits comfortably with a utilitarian approach.
From a Kantian perspective, building of goodwill and friendship is a rule we could will to have universal application, so it satisfies the Categorical Imperative - provided we respect people and their autonomy and do not seek to generate goodwill or friendship through deception.
Goodwill and friendship are virtues, so action to foster them bears the mark of a virtuous actor, provided the action does not involve vices such as lies and false promises.[3]
- Will it be beneficial to all concerned?
This part of the Test accords closely with the utilitarian principle of achieving the greatest balance of benefits over harms for all those affected.
But will it always be possible to act in a way that benefits all concerned? Take the decision by a club about when to hold meetings. Chances are that whatever meeting time is chosen it will not suit (and therefore benefit) all members. Some members may be unable to attend at those times due to other commitments.
How do you satisfy the Test in these circumstances?
A utilitarian solution would be to choose the time that best suits the majority of members because this would maximise the benefits of attendance.
What additional measures might be taken to satisfy the Test’s requirements that all members benefit by being able to attend meetings?
Our Club has sought to achieve this by scheduling a monthly meeting by Zoom so members who have difficulty attending lunchtime meetings at Kooyong can participate in at least some Club meetings.
Kantian theory approves decisions that have universal application and respect people’s rights and autonomy. The example above of measures that enable all members to attend at least some club meetings could be applied universally, and respects the right of members to participate in club meetings.
Applying virtue ethics and the Golden Mean approach is likely to produce a similar result – the measures above being the mean between the excess of holding meetings at different times on several days of the week, to the deficiency of holding meetings at a time convenient to no one. The virtuous actor showing respect and responsiveness to members’ needs would choose a similar solution.
Maintaining relationships would be uppermost in mind if we took an ethics of care approach, since club relationships are best served by measures that take account of the needs of all members when scheduling meetings.
Next week, in the Conclusion to this five-part series on the Four-way Test, we will consider whether the Testremains a relevant and practical guide to ethical decision-making in the modern world. I’ll also suggest a six-step process you could use when the answer to the question of how to act in a particular situation is not clear-cut, and when it appears that no solution will be able to fully satisfy every part of the Test.
[1] M Velasquez, C Andre, T Shanks, S.J., and M J Meyer, ‘Justice and Fairness’, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/justice-and-fairness/. An example is retributive or corrective justice which requires that punishments for criminal acts take into account relevant criteria such as the seriousness of the crime and the extent of culpability, and disregard irrelevant criteria such as race. The most fundamental principle of justice is that ‘equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally. In other words, treat people the same, unless their circumstances differ in relevant ways. An example of justified unequal treatment is where those whose efforts make a greater contribution to a project receive greater benefits from the project than those who made less effort to contribute. On the other hand, treating individuals differently on the basis of age, gender, race, or sexual or religious preferences are not justifiable grounds for treating people differently.
[2] B M Goldman and R Cropanzano, ‘Justice and Fairness are not the Same Thing’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 313-318 (2015). For example, if the performance of employees is appraised according to accepted criteria, but one employee has their appraisal favourably modified after complaining to management, the other employees may view this as unfair, but it is not necessarily unjust since the criteria are agreed upon and applicable to everyone. While the fairness of an act can be judged by its moral integrity; justice is judged by a number of factors including equality, efficiency and respect for rights, that may or may not also include moral integrity.
[3] The Golden Mean approach may not be helpful in regard to this part of the Test. This is because the Test only requires that action builds goodwill and better friendships. It doesn’t require the action build goodwill and friendship ‘for all concerned’ which, if it did, would invite comparison between different actions and make it easier to identify extremes of response.