What is "fairness"?

[otseng]

The issue of "fairness" has been brought up multiple times, especially in regards to non-believers going to an eternal hell.

So, I'm creating this thread to dive into "fairness".

Let's start off by asking several questions:
1. What is fairness?
2. How would something be considered fair or not fair?
3. Why should something being fair be even considered important?
4. Where does our desire for fairness originate?
5. Is it even possible for things to be fair?

These are all the questions I can think of for now, but feel free to add any more to the list.

[Corvus]

I will try this experiment if you try mine. It is simply to ask some adults whether they think their parents have been fair to them. None of this generalised "life" nonsense, which condenses their many years into an instant and asks them to evaluate it. That question is not unlike asking whether someone thinks their life meets their expectations, which it never does.

Some fairness from ones own 'loved ones' is hardly a fair poll regarding 'fairness in the world', though. I would HOPE that one's own parents treated one with more 'fairness' than 'unfairness'. That would be an invalid poll in regards to the question though. 'Universal' covers a broader spectrum than one or two 'loved ones'.

When did we begin discussing universal fairness? What I originally called into question was your former belief in the complete non-existence of fairness. Everyone has a parent, families, friends, who they would not keep if they were not treated fairly by them. Very few people ever escape the influence of their parents. Taking this into account, there is a great deal of fairness directly observable by us. What are we judging, the fairness of the world, or the fairness of the systems in which we were born, and to whom we are mere cogs?

You have completely neglected to answer to the reality of my statement regarding the legal system. You could have translated into your own 'language'. It wouldn't be difficult. I imagine that the same would hold true there, human nature being what it is. The rich and famous can still buy more fairness than others.

Not completely neglected to answer. I did answer it indirectly in the course of my response. Though I expect that the legal situation here is not nearly as bad as that of America, yes, as with any component of a system that runs on money, it favours those who have it. But, as I stated earlier, despite these flaws, I am still pleased that the laws are such that no 11 year olds have lately been thrown into prison because they stole some celery, or a loaf of bread, and none have a need to resort to stealing handkerchiefs in order to live. I am glad a welfare system operates in concert with the legal system, like a safety net above a tightrope, that if such a child were found, it would be placed in a (hopefully) good home. It is a system better (fairer) than that of most countries, and infinitely better than those systems that have come before it. I also feel some appreciation, mingled with surprise, that this system was adopted in a place where those convicted for stealing a loaf of bread were once sent. Things are most certainly fairer, and I am reaping the rewards given to me by those people who struggled to "make a difference", and granted by the good fortune to be born in this country. (Goodness, I'm starting to sound like a patriot!)

... still have not answered my question as to whether life would be more fair if the justice system did not exist at all.

Life would be neither more nor less fair if the present legal systems were abolished. New ones would, of necessity, appear. Legal systems have nothing to do with 'fairness'. Unless you wish to argue that they are providing a 'fairness' to society by locking away a 'predator'. It certainly isn't 'fair' to the predator though. Just ask an inmate.[/quote]
The predator lives in a society, and thus must respect society's obligations. Yes, this is tyranny of the majority, and unfortunately, there are few alternatives. Note, I do not believe in a good or bad, but to sustain my own life and keep my possessions, I defend these laws. I really do not understand how anyone living in a society cannot. You oppose dictatorships for the same reasons, surely. Rampant criminals give undue pain to the masses just as surely as dictators would.

[Nameless]

If you are contending that locking predatory people away from their intended victims provides a form of 'fairness' to the victims, that a 'welfare' system provides a form of 'fairness' to the needy, then we'll just have to agree to agree. I can't argue against, since 'fairness' can have a 'wide' definition indeed.

"Everyone has a parent, families, friends, who they would not keep if they were not treated fairly by them."

Are you serious here? Is there some sort of 'parent bank' down under where disgruntled children can trade in old unfair parents for new? Perhaps unfair parents are of value to the child? To prepare him emotionally for an essentially unfair world?

[Corvus]

If you are contending that locking predatory people away from their intended victims provides a form of 'fairness' to the victims, that a 'welfare' system provides a form of 'fairness' to the needy, then we'll just have to agree to agree. I can't argue against, since 'fairness' can have a 'wide' definition indeed.

"Everyone has a parent, families, friends, who they would not keep if they were not treated fairly by them."

Are you serious here? Is there some sort of 'parent bank' down under where disgruntled children can trade in old unfair parents for new? Perhaps unfair parents are of value to the child? To prepare him emotionally for an essentially unfair world?

Bad phrasing. Of course that only applies to friends.

[Abulafia]

I know that this might be an inapropriate place to make this analogy, but haven't christians always believed that they were 'blessed' with a 'superior' position (e-ticket into their 'heaven') over the 'heathen'. Have not the 'well meaning' christians murdered and destroyed throught history, destroyed all the noble indigenous cultures that have had the misfortune to have contact? Heaven at the point of a sword? "We'll help them if it kills them?" And they truly believed that they are in a 'better position' than the 'poor savages'?? I guess that one would have to ask the remnants of those noble cultures, if any have survived, their opinion in the matter. Because you have more 'wealth' and someone else has less, that doesn't nake you 'better off' than they are, just different. You might 'feel' better (EGO) than they, but without asking them if they wished to be 'civilized', or 'christianized', they should have simply been 'left alone and respected'. Understand my point?

I understand what you're saying, and certainly acknowledge that there are plenty of Christians out there with views similar to those you describe. Yet my experience with a fairly wide range of Christians (from Born again fundamentalists to Roman Catholics to United Church of Canada (which I grew up in), I've found that most of them who sincerely try to follow the teachings of Christ have very 'superiority complex', and are often quite open to the fact that their way isn't the only way.

As far as "murdering and destroying throughout history", of course this has happened (and still happens), but it's important to distinguish between

1) People whose religious tenets encourage them to engage in violent conversion

2) Political elites who warp a religion and its' sentiments in order to justify their expansionism, etc. After all, mainline Christianity is heavily influenced by Emperor Augustine, who one could argue may have had motives which weren't entirely religious.

While I think that the concept of "fair" IS one that people mature past, the people whose actions seem to me to indicate what I would consider higher levels of personal growth tend to act in ways which, in general, would be considered (by those whose worldview is still one in which the concept "fair" is used) as fair.

Sometimes, but not all. Perhaps another's idea of 'fair' might appear to us as 'unfair' due to our lack of 'perspective' or some-such?

Not to be overly pedantic, but what you describe is slightly different. If I understand you correctly, you're talking about two person's whose concepts of fair differ, and thus what one thinks is fair the other thinks is unfair.

I was talking about a situation where someone who still thinks in terms of "fair" and "unfair" judges the actions of someone who has truly matured past these concepts (as opposed to someone who thinks they have, this latter group being I suspect rather larger than the former). While even in this case of course the person's actions might be judged "unfair", I think the majority of the time they'll be seen as fair. But I think that's more a matter of opinion and perhaps faith based on a few experiences rather than something I could definitively argue for.

Again, for all to hear, I agree that there IS fairness in the universe, just a really 'negligible' amount. Certainly not enough to 'season' the stew! *__-

Fair enough In my life, I'm used to experiencing folks who are often not only fair but truly altruistic (by my understanding of the word). Sometimes the fact that I'm extraordinarily blessed with the group of people that I know tends to skew my view of the world, and make it harder to remember that that's not the situation for the majority of people.

[Nameless]

I was talking about a situation where someone who still thinks in terms of "fair" and "unfair" judges the actions of someone who has truly matured past these concepts.... While even in this case of course the person's actions might be judged "unfair", I think the majority of the time they'll be seen as fair.

First, the 'unenlightened' have no 'dominion over' to 'judge' the 'behavior' of the 'enlightened'. Fools, are those who, having been blind from birth, argue about the color orange! Let them first reach that level, and then... As far as the 'majority', they are as foolish as the minority. A consensus of fools cannot reflect 'truth'. The behavior of the 'enlightened' may often appear to not fall into the common definition of 'fairness', but perhaps the 'enlightened' have a 'higher' purpose than 'fairness', subsequently 'fairness' becomes subservient and even expendable to 'truth', or 'whatever'. Yet the fools still judge in their 'blindness'...

Fair enough ;) In my life, I'm used to experiencing folks who are often not only fair but truly altruistic (by my understanding of the word). Sometimes the fact that I'm extraordinarily blessed with the group of people that I know tends to skew my view of the world, and make it harder to remember that that's not the situation for the majority of people.

The only way to know if one is being truly altruistic, is to 'know their heart'.
That being said, enjoy your rare blessings.

[Nameless]

Another thought on the matter of 'fairness'.

"Every kind of partial and transitory dis-equilibrium must perforce contribute towards the great equilibrium of the whole, and nothing can ultimately prevail against the power of the 'truth'!" -Rene Guinon

This basically implies (to me) that all is "fair" (perhaps 'just' would be more meaningful here?), and no-one has the full 'vision' to see the 'whole picture' to judge.

Now, if one takes the theory of reincarnation as true, most of the world seems to, then that would be another feather in the cap of 'fairness'.

"The present embodiment in Matter of a given individual is regarded as the result of his past lives; everything is just, and it is foolish to deny pain and misery, and unspiritual to hope to obtain benefits which one has not earned by actions in the past." -http://www.theosophical.ca/NatureOfMysticismCJ.htm

So, perhaps being born crippled and destitute IS 'fair' in a larger picture?

[side note; The early christians believed in reincarnation. Most referrences were edited out of the bible at a later date to bolster church power and influence. Some referrences still remain in the book.]