Parable of the workers in the vineyard, is it really fair?

[lostguest]

I was wondering, how is the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20: 1-16) different from a modern day employer who pays men more than women for doing the exact same work? Or what if an employer decided to pay, for example white people more than people of other races (or minorities and people from third world countries) for doing the same amount or even more work?
Also, even though people normally agree beforehand to certain work conditions as far as pay and type/amount of work, they still have an expectation of payment proportional to their work. In my opinion it would be different if they knew prior to agreeing to work under those conditions that others would get paid the same for a fraction of their effort and knowing that they would be carrying other people's weight.
I understand that the householder was trying to be generous to the laborers who came late. However, personally I think that the parable could only be considered fair if for instance, the householder had "loaned" the payment to the late workers but had then come back to work another day to make up for the hours they didn't work, given the fact that the early workers were not aware of all the facts prior to agreeing to work. Or maybe the householder should have let the early workers go home early once the late workers arrived while still paying them the agreed upon amount.

[Checkpoint]

It's a parable and the workers are Christians. Some believe early in their life and work all day and go to heaven. Some believe at the end of their lives and still get to go to heaven. That's the meaning.

Many of the workers perceive this as unjust because they are sinners saved by grace and forget that fact. We should be rejoicing the return of the prodigal son no matter at what hour.

Yes, I know it's a parable but the point of a didactic figure is that it should be appropriate to the intended lesson. This one isn't, since it suggests blatant unfairness. In the Christian explanation, the unfairness is gone, since people merit heaven by their conviction, regardless of when it takes place (or so we understand.)

I have no problem rejoicing the return of the prodigal son or the good fortune of those who, like St. Augustine, had their sinful fun and then repented. My criticism is with the analogy that has been chosen.

If people are "chosen" then what has happened to personal decision to become a Christian? If the owner equates with God, then the emphasis is on who God choses, rather than who chooses to be a Christian.
Labouring, as a Christian, paints a negative image. Those who came late apparently did not labour until their conversion. One would have thought that their torment ceased when they found God.

I agree with what Wootah said and disagree with your reply.

The parable does not suggest blatant unfairness, its critics do. It is appropriate to the intended lesson.

"Unfairness" is part of the Christian walk, it comes with the territory.

That unfairness took Jesus to the cross, and many of his followers to martyrdom.

Romans 9:14-24.

[marco]

The parable does not suggest blatant unfairness, its critics do. It is appropriate to the intended lesson.

"Unfairness" is part of the Christian walk, it comes with the territory.

Fine -if Jesus was illustrating the unfairness of God then who am I to argue with that? Incidentally, I can't see how a 2-month old child who is baptised and dies can conceivably be included among the Christian "labourers." Is breathing a labour?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 30 by marco]

There is nothing unfair about the parable - everyone gets paid what they were promised.

[marco]

[Replying to post 30 by marco]

There is nothing unfair about the parable - everyone gets paid what they were promised.

There is certainly an element of unfairness, else we wouldn't be discussing it. There is prima facie unfairness in giving a wage fit for those that work an hour and paying those who work all day the same wage. Because it has been agreed does not remove the unfairness. It is commonly thought unfair to pay migrant workers far less than the normal rate, even though they have accepted this wage.

And quite apart from the unfairness in the original, there is a problem with translating "labour" into terms appropriate for the Christian parallel.

The reason the parable is deemed worthy is because of the status of its alleged author - or the alleged status of its author. Go well.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 30 by marco]

There is nothing unfair about the parable - everyone gets paid what they were promised.

There is certainly an element of unfairness, else we wouldn't be discussing it. There is prima facie unfairness in giving a wage fit for those that work an hour and paying those who work all day the same wage. Because it has been agreed does not remove the unfairness. It is commonly thought unfair to pay migrant workers far less than the normal rate, even though they have accepted this wage.

And quite apart from the unfairness in the original, there is a problem with translating "labour" into terms appropriate for the Christian parallel.

The reason the parable is deemed worthy is because of the status of its alleged author - or the alleged status of its author. Go well.

That's absurd to say because we are discussing something then it must be true.

Just because you're not getting it doesn't change the fact that it is not unfair.

[marco]

There is certainly an element of unfairness, else we wouldn't be discussing it. There is prima facie unfairness in giving a wage fit for those that work an hour and paying those who work all day the same wage.

That's absurd to say because we are discussing something then it must be true.

Just because you're not getting it doesn't change the fact that it is not unfair.

Yes, it would be absurd had I said this. My meaning is that we have been given the topic to discuss, so there is some discernible element of unfairness there which, of course, might simply be caused by the reader's stupidity.
We each hold a view on whether paying workers the same amount of money for one hour and for an entire day is fair or not. I explained my view in detail and presumably it has been rejected as unworthy of comment. I can only apologise for my shortcomings.

If I "don't get it", as you politely put it, then I take consolation from the knowledge that thousands of others would likewise "not get it." I accept that if you tell me your God can do whatever he wants and you can't complain about it, this removes backchat about fairness. No one wants to fall foul of a divinity. Telling us God can kick or reward as he sees fit is a perfect way to explain Christ's puzzling parable. No more to be said. I wonder why the matter was brought up if it is so easily resolved.

[Wootah]

There is certainly an element of unfairness, else we wouldn't be discussing it. There is prima facie unfairness in giving a wage fit for those that work an hour and paying those who work all day the same wage.

That's absurd to say because we are discussing something then it must be true.

Just because you're not getting it doesn't change the fact that it is not unfair.

Yes, it would be absurd had I said this. My meaning is that we have been given the topic to discuss, so there is some discernible element of unfairness there which, of course, might simply be caused by the reader's stupidity.
We each hold a view on whether paying workers the same amount of money for one hour and for an entire day is fair or not. I explained my view in detail and presumably it has been rejected as unworthy of comment. I can only apologise for my shortcomings.

If I "don't get it", as you politely put it, then I take consolation from the knowledge that thousands of others would likewise "not get it." I accept that if you tell me your God can do whatever he wants and you can't complain about it, this removes backchat about fairness. No one wants to fall foul of a divinity. Telling us God can kick or reward as he sees fit is a perfect way to explain Christ's puzzling parable. No more to be said. I wonder why the matter was brought up if it is so easily resolved.

People can be wrong and ask questions that are wrong.

I can't explain fairness to you if you think it is unfair that a person is allowed to make individual deals. Suppose two shops sell the same thing and you buy it from the first shop only to discover it was cheaper in the second shop. Was the first shop unfair? Were you forced to trade? Suppose now instead of two shops it is one shop selling - it still doesn't make it unfair.

Unfairness only comes from not honoring the deal.

The notion of fairness is so nebulous, especially in politics, I rarely trust anyone in politics using it. Be careful of it because the only way to be truly fair is to make sure everyone has nothing.

God does not reward/punish as He sees fit. He honors his word. It is impossible for God to send a man to hell who calls upon Jesus as his saviour.

[marco]

I can't explain fairness to you if you think it is unfair that a person is allowed to make individual deals.

I have no problem with the rest of what you say.

In the divine situation God can show mercy wherever he wants. If he treats different men in different ways, then that might be unfair. But God is God.

In the practical situation of the workplace, the owner must be seen to act fairly and it is not correct that he makes an hourly rate for some and gives a completely different rate for others. The agreement has nothing to do with the fairness. If Caesar's wife must be seen to be above suspicion, the owner must avoid criticisms of favouritism or bias and he does this best by treating all his workers the same. That is fairness.

But let's agree to differ and chink glasses.

[bluethread]

I can't explain fairness to you if you think it is unfair that a person is allowed to make individual deals.

I have no problem with the rest of what you say.

In the divine situation God can show mercy wherever he wants. If he treats different men in different ways, then that might be unfair. But God is God.

In the practical situation of the workplace, the owner must be seen to act fairly and it is not correct that he makes an hourly rate for some and gives a completely different rate for others. The agreement has nothing to do with the fairness. If Caesar's wife must be seen to be above suspicion, the owner must avoid criticisms of favouritism or bias and he does this best by treating all his workers the same. That is fairness.

But let's agree to differ and chink glasses.

That is not an absolute moral imperative. That is the moral doctrine of egalitarianism. There is no inherent suspicion in unequal pay. In fact, the whole "equal pay for equal work" mantra is a canard. Though one can mathematically establish an equal pay rate, there are many ways to determine "equal" work. There is time, quantity, quality, experience, seniority, "need", etc. Valuing things in an arms length negotiation, places the responsibility for taking all of those things into account squarely on the parties to the transaction, where it belongs. That is the point of the parable. Some people getting more than they bargained for does not mean that those who got what they bargained for were somehow cheated. If they got less than what they bargained for, they might be a point, but that is not the case here.

Or should I presume that I get to share in the toast, just because I am here, and you are buying.

[marco]

That is not an absolute moral imperative. That is the moral doctrine of egalitarianism.

Yes, and it thereby gives good reason to take issue with the parable.

There is no inherent suspicion in unequal pay. In fact, the whole "equal pay for equal work" mantra is a canard. Though one can mathematically establish an equal pay rate, there are many ways to determine "equal" work. There is time, quantity, quality, experience, seniority, "need", etc.

All of which is commendably well argued, making a good case for there being no unfairness. I am not deficient in counter-arguments, which means that the question of fairness is far from obvious.

HOWEVER, while I agree that there are many reasons for giving some more pay than others, this aspect is absent from any lesson in the parable. There is no suggestion that the award was made for superior effort and this requires one to read new material into the tale. The good parable must stand on what it actually expresses. The point of the parable seems to be that the owner can do what he wishes with his money. This is true but hardly a commendation for a Nobel Prize. Your secondary evaluation of the parable to extract some more fairness is a credit to your powers of creative investigation.

Or should I presume that I get to share in the toast, just because I am here, and you are buying.

Your explanation deserves some reward, certainly. Let us take it that the one you were defending will reward you with much more than a glass of wine.
Did Descartes also say, "sum, ergo bibo" ? Go well.