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.

[Nameless]

Abu,
One is born without half a brain and in poverty. Another is born without 3/4 brain in grinding wealth. One is born a slave, etc... etc.... So, from the very begining of our life, there is no 'fairness' as commonly defined. Seeking something that has no existence seems like a bit of a waste of time? Waiting for Godot? Tilting at windmills? So, in 'reaction' to ones initial state of 'unfair existence', one attempts to create 'fairness' to 'compensate?
Instead of seeking fairness as some sort of goal, how about 'honesty' and the pursuit of 'truth' as goals with a bit more .... 'meat'? Fairness and 'honesty' often conflict. Are we looking for a 'feel good' fix, or something or more meaning and 'value'?

I don't give too much credence to 'notions' of any sort, but would our community, our 'society' not be better served if we lived each moment honestly and in truth, to the best of our ability?

The only 'hurt' relating to the notion of 'fairness' is that like others I was taught to 'believe' in it. Finding out that one's belief has no 'reality', that there is no 'fairness' in the world is painful. Like having any illusions destroyed, there is pain involved. Perhaps that is a positive 'pain', but pain nontheless. Growing pains...

Happiness is a personal thing. I cannot 'give happiness' to anyone. I define it as a state of 'pleasant surprise' that must be found within. There are 'happy' people in prison, and miserable people that are 'free' and have everything! This 'happiness is a red herring in relation to 'fairness'. Besides, fairness is only 'good' when it benefits you. If half of your 'wealth' is taken and distributed to those without, in the name of 'fairness', I don't think you would agree with that 'fairness. Not a happy thing, in that scenario... for you anyway.

It just seems like a superficial 'goal' in one's life.

[Abulafia]

One is born without half a brain and in poverty. Another is born without 3/4 brain in grinding wealth. One is born a slave, etc... etc....

How do you feel about that? It sounds like you've resigned yourself to the fact that that's "just how things are", then drawn the conclusion that therefore there's no point in trying to change things. If you have resigned yourself to it, what makes that position less superficial than the other? If you haven't resigned yourself to it, what makes you wish things were different?

Abu,
Instead of seeking fairness as some sort of goal, how about 'honesty' and the pursuit of 'truth' as goals with a bit more .... 'meat'? Fairness and 'honesty' often conflict. Are we looking for a 'feel good' fix, or something or more meaning and 'value'?

Why do these have to be an either/or situation? I suppose as you feel that fairness is delusional, it makes sense that you think it conflicts with honesty. Maybe when we talk about fairness we're talking about different things. To me fairness is a first approach towards true altruism. What are your feelings on altruism? Is it a crock as well?

I don't give too much credence to 'notions' of any sort, but would our community, our 'society' not be better served if we lived each moment honestly and in truth, to the best of our ability?

Why would you prefer a society which strives for truthfulness more than you would prefer one which strives for truthfulness and fairness?

Happiness is a personal thing. I cannot 'give happiness' to anyone. I define it as a state of 'pleasant surprise' that must be found within. There are 'happy' people in prison, and miserable people that are 'free' and have everything!

You're right not to equate happiness with fairness. There are happy people in prison, and plenty of unhappy people who are "free". But I think it's a cop-out to say happiness is just a personal thing. That justifies anything I do to anyone: "Sure, I had the guy unjustly imprisoned, and that's 'unfair', but he should get over it, and find his inner happiness...".

This 'happiness is a red herring in relation to 'fairness'.

Find me a person who is being treated unfairly. Change that persons situation to one that is more fair. Generally, will the person be more happy or not?

Of course it's not black and white: There are plenty of cases of folks who are unjustly imprisoned for long periods of time who upon receiving their freedom commit some petty crime in order to go back to prison, as they no longer know how to deal with the outside world. Of course in a situation like that I might hesitate to call throwing them back out without much help at all a fair thing to do... but that's a different thread.

I'm just saying that the fact that there isn't a direct correlation between fairness and happiness is a far cry from them being unrelated, or a search for fairness having nothing to do with happiness.

Besides, fairness is only 'good' when it benefits you. If half of your 'wealth' is taken and distributed to those without, in the name of 'fairness', I don't think you would agree with that 'fairness. Not a happy thing, in that scenario... for you anyway.

Your example only works for someone who would consider having their wealth seized and redistributed as fair. As those people are few and far between, you haven't struck much of a blow against the concept of fairness... maybe against the idea of Leninism.... or the French Revolution...

There's also two fundamentally different issues here:

1) Trying to force other people to conform to your idea of fairness (which is what you argue against).

2) Trying to live your own life fairly and in a way that promotes fairness.

Even if you successfully argue against (1), you haven't argued against fairness as a concept or as a goal. You've only argued against a means for achieving it.

As far as fairness only being good for the person on the short end of the stick, I would disagree with that too, but would have difficulty arguing against it to someone who steadfastly believes it to be true (especially in words on a forum). In short though, I think that if one's idea of what's important in life is amassing the most stuff then you're right: fairness sucks. But if one's goal is to grow as a person: (to increase their own ability to see and seek truth, their ability to deal with whatever life throws at 'em, to increase their level of functionality in the world), that seeking fairness (particularly for others) has benefits.

It just seems like a superficial 'goal' in one's life.

If I take someone on the one hand who believes in 'honesty' and pursuit of truth as goals, but who is heartless and self-serving, and I take on the other hand someone who's life is dedicated to trying to make a difference in the world by making things a little better for those who are badly off,
I tend to judge the first as more superficial.

And of course, if one is trying to make things better, the more one understands the truth, the more successful one is going to be.

I'm not saying we'll ever reach a utopia. I am saying that making the world a bit better and a bit more just hardly seems a superficial goal.

It's interesting to me that most of the people who I think seem to have a good bead on a wide variety of "truths" also tend to be people who are altruistic.


All that said: I think that fundamentally you are right when you say that 'fairness' is superficial. But I think I mean it differently than you. I think that 'fairness' is a somewhat childish notion. I think that beyond fairness is an understanding of the interconnectedness of things, and an understanding that synergy is better than parasitism, and is a valid option. A move away from treating life like a zero-sum game and towards non-zero sum situations leads to a worldview in which 'fairness' doesn't play much of a role.... but it looks a lot like fairness to folks who are still in a zero-sum, "dog eat dog" worldview.

[Nameless]

One is born without half a brain and in poverty. Another is born without 3/4 brain in grinding wealth. One is born a slave, etc... etc....

How do you feel about that? It sounds like you've resigned yourself to the fact that that's "just how things are", then drawn the conclusion that therefore there's no point in trying to change things. If you have resigned yourself to it, what makes that position less superficial than the other? If you haven't resigned yourself to it, what makes you wish things were different?

How do I feel about 'reality'? What sense does it make to 'feel anything' about what is? How do you feel about icy weather? Scorching sun? Only having 2 hands? Get the idea? It makes no sense to feel either way about 'the way things are'.
Resigned to 'reality' sounds like a rather negative connotation. Perhaps I look out over my creation and say that it is that it is? My universe is just the way I create it. 'Fairness' is merely another illusion among many...
What makes it less superficial to see and accept that which is? I think that that is wisdom. To understand the need for things the way they are enhances one's 'timing' in life, one's compassion, one's joy and happiness. Imagine if I was 'uncomfortable with the sky? I'd live a rather miserable life. To accept and understand all creation as good (as god) is an 'enlightened' perspective. You, being here on this forum, I assume that you are a christian, believe that "God" created everything. Who are you to complain about that which you cannot understand? How can you reconcile your "dislike and ultimate judgement" of your "God's" creation, yet continue to 'worship and praise' this "God" as perfect and loving and all the 'omnis' attributed to It? Perhaps if there is some point or other of "God's" creation that you don't "like", you might look to your having 'likes and dislikes' for error instead of "God's" creation?

Abu,
Instead of seeking fairness as some sort of goal, how about 'honesty' and the pursuit of 'truth' as goals with a bit more .... 'meat'? Fairness and 'honesty' often conflict. Are we looking for a 'feel good' fix, or something or more meaning and 'value'?

Why do these have to be an either/or situation? I suppose as you feel that fairness is delusional, it makes sense that you think it conflicts with honesty. Maybe when we talk about fairness we're talking about different things. To me fairness is a first approach towards true altruism. What are your feelings on altruism? Is it a crock as well?

Hehehe... Crock is a rather judgemental term. I would put it in the same basket as fairness in life though. Altruism is defined as, "unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness."
Ain't no such thing. Everything one does has selfish roots. Personal satisfaction, good feelings, material gain, feeling better about one's own state of affairs, etc... Is it altruistic to give money to a beggar? Makes you feel good to be able to help, doesn't it? Are you going to be the first in human history to be truly altruistic? Do you hope to be? Will you try flying too after that?

I don't give too much credence to 'notions' of any sort, but would our community, our 'society' not be better served if we lived each moment honestly and in truth, to the best of our ability?

Why would you prefer a society which strives for truthfulness more than you would prefer one which strives for truthfulness and fairness?

Truthfulness requires one to 'seek' and 'find' "Truth" ant to 'become' that truth. Fairness is a lie. There is no such thing. It is inconsistant with "Truth". Striving for that which has no existence seems foolish at best, and 'deluded' at worst, a complete waste of one's time. Again, I'm assuming your Christianity, I'd refer you to the owner of the vinyard who went in the early morning to hire help, offering the fellow $20. for the days labor. He went out a few hours later and offered someone else the same offer, and again throughout the day. When paytime came around and the men who were hired early in the day complained about the UNFAIRNESS of them having to work hard all day for the $20, and those hired just a couple hours ago were getting paid the same for less work? Remember the reply? Remember the parable?

Happiness is a personal thing. I cannot 'give happiness' to anyone. I define it as a state of 'pleasant surprise' that must be found within. There are 'happy' people in prison, and miserable people that are 'free' and have everything!

You're right not to equate happiness with fairness. There are happy people in prison, and plenty of unhappy people who are "free". But I think it's a cop-out to say happiness is just a personal thing. That justifies anything I do to anyone: "Sure, I had the guy unjustly imprisoned, and that's 'unfair', but he should get over it, and find his inner happiness...".

First, 'happiness' IS (just) a personal thing. Happiness is a 'feeling' and that is ultimately, intimately personal. One cannot 'share' a feeling with another. Something that might make me happy might not 'work' for you. Simple. Happiness justifies nothing. I don't know where you get that from. Certainly not from me. Another 'red herring'? If you were the one in prison, "fairly" or otherwise, wouldn't it be 'wisdom' for you to "get over it" and find your 'truth and happiness' within?? Many do.

This 'happiness is a red herring in relation to 'fairness'.

Find me a person who is being treated unfairly. Change that persons situation to one that is more fair. Generally, will the person be more happy or not?

One example of 'unfair', if you like, is Bill Gates. He has quite a corner on much of the earth's resources. Because he personally has so much, many, many have to do without, as resources are limited. So, in his situation, neither he, nor the millions who have to do without are in a state of 'fairness'. Lets create some 'fairness' here and remove, oh, say a few billion from his bank and distribute it to those who have had to do without. Now he, and they would exist in a state of 'fairness'. Agree? Now, how do you think that this newly 'baptised in fairness' individual, Mr. Gates feels about his newly 'fair' condition? How about the 'recipients'? Am I being clear here?

I'm just saying that the fact that there isn't a direct correlation between fairness and happiness is a far cry from them being unrelated, or a search for fairness having nothing to do with happiness.

Could you please restate this as I am unclear as to your meaning here?

There's also two fundamentally different issues here:

1) Trying to force other people to conform to your idea of fairness (which is what you argue against).

True. I am personally opposed to authoritarianism and fascism.

2) Trying to live your own life fairly and in a way that promotes fairness.

If that is the way you wish to spend your life, that is your business. I don't have a problem with that. Just stay out of my window, I don't want my belongings 'redistributed'! *__-

Even if you successfully argue against (1), you haven't argued against fairness as a concept or as a goal. You've only argued against a means for achieving it.

Fairness IS a 'concept'. Again, if you find value in persuing it as a personal 'goal' in your life, I have no quarrel with that. You would have to be clear and specific in your means of achieving 'universal fairness' before I could agree or not with those means. You've mentioned nothing in that regard, so what 'means' have I argued against? Redistribution of wealth?

As far as fairness only being good for the person on the short end of the stick, I would disagree with that too, but would have difficulty arguing against it to someone who steadfastly believes it to be true (especially in words on a forum).

One, I steadfastly believe nothing. Second, you can use all sorts of 'tools' (logic, intuition, rationality, experimentation, empiricism, etc..) to argue and disagree with what I say. Perhaps you could use logic to convince me of a 'new truth'. If you find that you cannot support your position, logically, rationally, etc... perhaps it is YOU who might find a 'new truth'? I simply go with my (albeit subjective) experience and enlightenment... Nothing is carved in stone. Present a better argument and I might alter my 'position' in view of my new 'truth', and the 'reality' that it would reveal..

...if one's goal is to grow as a person: (to increase their own ability to see and seek truth, their ability to deal with whatever life throws at 'em, to increase their level of functionality in the world), that seeking fairness (particularly for others) has benefits.

Noble goals! I don't see 'fairness' as having anything to do with them and their acquisition though. What 'benefits'? Having had and achieved those goals myself, I never encountered 'fairness' as anything of value in the process. What is your egotistical position that you would wish to alter other people's lives to conform to your 'concepts'?? Doesn't everyone have their own 'concepts'?

It just seems like a superficial 'goal' in one's life.

If I take someone on the one hand who believes in 'honesty' and pursuit of truth as goals, but who is heartless and self-serving, and I take on the other hand someone who's life is dedicated to trying to make a difference in the world by making things a little better for those who are badly off,
I tend to judge the first as more superficial.

"You cannot serve both "God" and "Mammon" at the same time."
If thine 'eye' is single, and you dilligently seek 'truth', whether heartless and ignorant or whatever, 'that' will be 'cured' as one reaches the 'depths' of 'understanding' and becomes 'enlightened'. I IMAGINE THAT 'TOUGH LOVE' SEEMS AS 'HEARTLESS' TO THE CHILD RECIPIENT. iS THE CHILD IN A POSITION TO 'JUDGE' THE PARENT? (Sorry, I hit 'cap lock' by accident) If your goal in life is to provide more "warm fuzzy" upon the earth, then verily I say unto you that you HAVE your reward. But it will not be "truth" and 'enlightenment'! It will be the 'egoic reward' of your feeling that you are superior to others (after all, you are in a 'better' position then they are as you are 'helping' them) and your life might be a bit 'warmer' also. No 'altruism' here! One 'goal' or another.... not both.

And of course, if one is trying to make things better, the more one understands the truth, the more successful one is going to be.

If you are 'trying to make things 'better', the only 'truth' you are going to understand is that related to 'making things better', and yes, you will be more successful. The 'enlightened' throughout history, have never gone about trying to make the 'world' a better place. They have tried to point the way to the individual's own mind and encouraged people to access their own 'inner Truth', thereby making the INDIVIDUAL'S world a 'better place'. At this point, the concept of 'fairness' becoms moot.

I'm not saying we'll ever reach a utopia. I am saying that making the world a bit better and a bit more just hardly seems a superficial goal.

I never meant insult when I used the term superficial. I hope none was taken. I merely used it as an observation, not a judgement. It just seems to me that the only world that you actually CAN make a better place is YOUR WORLD! Not the worlds of others. That is THEIR work. Meddling in other's lives is 'treading water', as your 'job' is to become 'lucid' in your world. To become 'self aware' and 'self realized' and live according to the new reality that 'consciousness' creates is our personal work here. Before all else. One cannot 'know' or 'help' anyone 'till one 'knows' and 'helps' oneself. (Beams and motes in eyes?) Otherwise, one just spins one's wheels.

It's interesting to me that most of the people who I think seem to have a good bead on a wide variety of "truths" also tend to be people who are altruistic.

"There are small truths and there are great Truths. The opposite of a small truth is obviously false. The opposite of a great Truth is also true!" -Neils Bohr
And, I have never seen any evidence of the existence of 'altruism'.

All that said: I think that fundamentally you are right when you say that 'fairness' is superficial. But I think I mean it differently than you. I think that 'fairness' is a somewhat childish notion. I think that beyond fairness is an understanding of the interconnectedness of things, and an understanding that synergy is better than parasitism, and is a valid option. A move away from treating life like a zero-sum game and towards non-zero sum situations leads to a worldview in which 'fairness' doesn't play much of a role.... but it looks a lot like fairness to folks who are still in a zero-sum, "dog eat dog" worldview.

OK, I think I agree, basically, here with you. Then why were we wasting our time with the above discussion??? And, 'fair' to the 'dog eat dog' crowd, still means what is 'good and comfortable' to the individual 'dog eater'. Perhaps I'm not understanding your last paragraph as you use so many 'buzzwords' that you'd have to define for me to fully understand your 'intent'.

[Corvus]

Instead of seeking fairness as some sort of goal, how about 'honesty' and the pursuit of 'truth' as goals with a bit more .... 'meat'?

But these are even more superficial than the pursuit of fairness. Superficial is defined as "without depth", and "not going beyond the surface". What is more superficial than the truth? Taking into consideration your signature, <i>"Every mistake is a big lesson, and thinking you've 'learned' something, is a BIG mistake!"</i>, how can we expect to find truth?

There's also two fundamentally different issues here:

1) Trying to force other people to conform to your idea of fairness (which is what you argue against).

True. I am personally opposed to authoritarianism and fascism.

But why? If it's wisdom to get over things, and fairness does not exist, on what grounds are you opposed to authoritarinsm and fascism, and why can you not progress from yor opposition to it and into a state of blissful unconcern, as someone "wrongly accused" should?

If that is the way you wish to spend your life, that is your business. I don't have a problem with that. Just stay out of my window, I don't want my belongings 'redistributed'! *__-

The same applies here. If fairness does not exist, then the only thing that is in jeopardy is your state of happiness which relies on you keeping your belongings.

You seem to be arguing against objective fairness, but your posts suggest that you can quite easily ascertain when unfairness is perpetrated against you, so you must understand that it certianly exists in a subjective sense. And if it exists in a subjective sense, a rough consensus of what is fair and what is unfair can be reached, which, although arbitrary, still meets with general satisfaction amongst a populace. I ask you that if fairness does not exist at all, do you believe we should not have a justice system, or that slavery is an acceptable institution?

[Nameless]

Instead of seeking fairness as some sort of goal, how about 'honesty' and the pursuit of 'truth' as goals with a bit more .... 'meat'?

But these are even more superficial than the pursuit of fairness. Superficial is defined as "without depth", and "not going beyond the surface". What is more superficial than the truth? Taking into consideration your signature, <i>"Every mistake is a big lesson, and thinking you've 'learned' something, is a BIG mistake!"</i>, how can we expect to find truth?

After reading the astounding statement of your's, "What is more superficial than the truth?" I realize that perhaps we speak of different things. I Am not speaking of 'the truth', I Am speaking of the "Truth"! That which is not describable by words. That which is eternally symmetrical, always the same, un-wet by water, un-burned by fire, timeless, the 'ground' of all there is and is not, that which 'exists' beyond the 'greatest depth' imaginable.. there are millions of words telling what "Truth" is not, Truth is beyond words, beyond 'duality'. Superficial? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you misunderstood my useage of Truth to be to be applicable to the common definition. No such thing. I searched for 'ultimate truth' for many decades, when I use the term 'Truth', it is to this that I refer. Little truths in the world of illusions are illusions themselves. I wouldn't pollute the word 'Truth' with the mundane meaning. And, one never does 'find' the 'ultimate truth', one becomes that Truth.

There's also two fundamentally different issues here:

1) Trying to force other people to conform to your idea of fairness (which is what you argue against).

True. I am personally opposed to authoritarianism and fascism.

But why? If it's wisdom to get over things, and fairness does not exist, on what grounds are you opposed to authoritarinsm and fascism, and why can you not progress from yor opposition to it and into a state of blissful unconcern, as someone "wrongly accused" should?

I know not where you get your 'progression to blissful unconcern' fantasy from, certainly not experience. It is nonsense. As one's consciousness expands, as one's awareness expands, as one's concepts and understanding of 'self' expands to infinite, one is intimately and acutely aware, actually feels, the pain around oneself. All 'selves' are one-self. A pain in your finger is easy for you to feel as it is part of your body and you are living in a bodily concept. You are your body, you identify with your body. Feeling something in an 'extremity' is not a difficult feat, if one is relatively healthy. You are an 'extremity' of mine. Your 'feelings', pain included, are 'available' for 'accessing'. The two most vastly predominant feelings extant in the world today are pain first and fear right up there with it. Your pain is my pain. Authoritarian people and fascists cause vast amounts of pain around them. It is my nature and consciousness to offer assistance if asked. Afterall, we do what we can to stop our own pain when we can. It is all mine. I can live with it. I accept it as part of this vast rich illusion that we call life. If you have trouble accepting that which cannot be altered, you will be miserable. If you hate the rain, you will be miserable when caught in it. Not a wise way to live. So, I offer assistance when the spirit moves me, and realize that people have to go through what they have to go through.

If that is the way you wish to spend your life, that is your business. I don't have a problem with that. Just stay out of my window, I don't want my belongings 'redistributed'! *__-

The same applies here. If fairness does not exist, then the only thing that is in jeopardy is your state of happiness which relies on you keeping your belongings.

Fairness does NOT exist as anything more than a figment of the imagination, a pretty concept. Perhaps you are unable to recognise metaphor? Any 'happiness I might feel, is unrelated to anything but this body and its feelings. My posessions are irrelevent. The world is SO unfair that I have trouble even believing anyone so naive (over 4years old) that actually believes he can make the world a 'fair' place. In Amerikkka, try being born beautiful, female with big tits, etc... and she doesn't need 'brains'! Try being born homely, skinny or fat, an 'unpleasant minority', etc... and you get 'bupkiss' your whole lonely, painful life. Fair? One born into wealth and posessions, one born into grinding poverty and you talk of fair??? You will eliminate the 'reality' of your universe HOW???? Do tell how you propose to 'level the playing field' here??

You seem to be arguing against objective fairness, but your posts suggest that you can quite easily ascertain when unfairness is perpetrated against you, so you must understand that it certianly exists in a subjective sense.

EVERYTHING exists subjectively. There is NO 'objective'. The concept that there can be 'objectivity' is the same deluded thinking that spawns the concept of 'fairness' in the world. You can try to be as 'fair' with other people as your christian morality and guilt will allow. I guess that that would be 'nice'. Ah, 'nice', there is not much more that is dishonest and superficial and deluded than having to be 'nice' when you feel like punching the 'spark of life' from a desperately 'deserving' individual!

And if it exists in a subjective sense, a rough consensus of what is fair and what is unfair can be reached, which, although arbitrary, still meets with general satisfaction amongst a populace.

Yeah, reached for a board game that meets with the satisfaction for the rarified populace of 'game players'. You certainly couldn't be speaking of the populace of the planet? Why don't you try a little experiment? One day, ask everyone you meet if they think that life has been fair to them. I would think the answers would be starkly obvious, but, hey, I guess not for everyone.

I ask you that if fairness does not exist at all, do you believe we should not have a justice system, or that slavery is an acceptable institution?

I am not catching your 'connection' between 'fairness' and the Amerikkkan 'justice system'?? Are you asserting that there IS one?? Are you asserting that the Amerikkkan 'justice system' is 'fair'? Are you serious? How old are you?? I guess that since you asked the question, you are serious... I'll give the 'short version'... You get all the 'fairness' and 'justice' that money can buy in your government's 'justice system'! Just ask O.J. Hahahah....
As for slavery, most of the working classes of people in this country are slaves... worse. Traditional 'slaves' had their medical taken care of, they had their clothing provided, they had their shelter provided, their food was likewise provided... Today, you work for a pathetically poor wage (ask all employees you meet in a day if they think that they are earning the right amount for the labor that they provide?) Are all their basic needs provided by the 'massas'? What do I think about slavery? I don't have a problem with it as long as the slaves are properly treated and cared for! Most today are not. Of course the real horror here is that once upon a time, a person knew that he was a slave. Today, you are so confused and deluded that you think that you are free. What a 'coup' for the corporate 'masters'. So sad and pathetic! You want to make the world a fair place? I wish you the best of luck, sincerely. You, and Don Quixote.

[Abulafia]

How do I feel about 'reality'? What sense does it make to 'feel anything' about what is? How do you feel about icy weather? Scorching sun? Only having 2 hands? Get the idea? It makes no sense to feel either way about 'the way things are'.

Were you a computer the statement that it makes no sense to feel anything would carry some weight. Presumably your not. Unless you are claiming to not feel, asking how you feel about a particular circumstance or "way of the world" seems to me pretty reasonable. Feeling and sense don't always go together (though of course they interrelate). As everything that happens to you is a part of "the way things are", are you claiming that

A) It makes no sense to feel about anything that happens to you in your life

B) Therefore, you don't feel anything about what happens in your life?

You, being here on this forum, I assume that you are a christian, believe that "God" created everything. Who are you to complain about that which you cannot understand? How can you reconcile your "dislike and ultimate judgement" of your "God's" creation, yet continue to 'worship and praise' this "God" as perfect and loving and all the 'omnis' attributed to It?

It strikes me as quite bizarre for you to make large numbers of assumptions about my beliefs, complaints, and practices based on my participation on a board which you also participate in, then to denigrate the beliefs that you attribute to me yet which I have nowhere asserted. Moreover, I think what I've talked about is striving for "fairness", not dislake and judgement of creation.

Unless you mean that by my taking any action in the world I'm tacitly disliking and judging the universe? Presumably that's not what you mean, else my decision to get up in the morning would be a tacit condemnation of my condition before getting up.... and that seems silly.

Perhaps if there is some point or other of "God's" creation that you don't "like", you might look to your having 'likes and dislikes' for error instead of "God's" creation?

That argument is invalid: presuming I am a part of God's creation, finding error in my likes and dislikes is finding error with an aspect of God's creation. (Footnote: As I have nowhere stated that I think creation is somehow in 'error', this is a pedantic point... )

Ain't no such thing. Everything one does has selfish roots. Personal satisfaction, good feelings, material gain, feeling better about one's own state of affairs, etc... Is it altruistic to give money to a beggar? Makes you feel good to be able to help, doesn't it? Are you going to be the first in human history to be truly altruistic? Do you hope to be? Will you try flying too after that?

Old argument that's never done much for me. Even if one's reason for giving money to a beggar were for the good feeling it gave them, why does it give them a good feeling?

If you want to follow that line of argument further, there's some good arguments which Hutcheson brings up in his Essay on the Nature and Conduct of the Passions I can dig out, but won't go to the trouble unless your abovementioned argument is one that is persuasive to you.

Truthfulness requires one to 'seek' and 'find' "Truth" and to 'become' that truth. Fairness is a lie. There is no such thing. It is inconsistant with "Truth". Striving for that which has no existence seems foolish at best, and 'deluded' at worst, a complete waste of one's time.

Everytime anyone makes an effort to create something that is essentially new, they have striven for that which has no existence.

Again, I'm assuming your Christianity

Until I know what the word "Christianity" means to you, I can't tell you whether I am or not. Certainly it seems like you draw your assumption from some fairly shaky threads, at least by what I judge you to mean by Christianity.

I'd refer you to the owner of the vinyard who went in the early morning to hire help, offering the fellow $20. for the days labor. He went out a few hours later and offered someone else the same offer, and again throughout the day. When paytime came around and the men who were hired early in the day complained about the UNFAIRNESS of them having to work hard all day for the $20, and those hired just a couple hours ago were getting paid the same for less work? Remember the reply? Remember the parable?

"But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? "

Are you going to tell me that the quote above doesn't presume the existence of fairness? I remember the reply and the parable. I think I just took something different out of it than you.

First, 'happiness' IS (just) a personal thing....

Of course each individual's happiness is ultimately up to them (to the extent that they have control over themselves, which arguably is a triflingly small amount compared to what we like to think we have, as a generality).

Are you arguing that one should take no responsibility for how one's actions impact another? (I'm not condemning that, I'm just trying to get a handle on what you're saying)

There's also two fundamentally different issues here:

1) Trying to force other people to conform to your idea of fairness (which is what you argue against).

True. I am personally opposed to authoritarianism and fascism.

Why? Presuming fairness doesn't enter into it, what's wrong with authoritarianism and fascism. Are you simply stating a personal preference, like liking vanilla instead of chocolate? Or do you think there's something deeper wrong with fascism?

2) Trying to live your own life fairly and in a way that promotes fairness.

If that is the way you wish to spend your life, that is your business. I don't have a problem with that. Just stay out of my window, I don't want my belongings 'redistributed'! *__-

I'm confused as to why you think that someone's having a belief in the worth of working towards fairness equates to them feeling like they have the right to re-distribute other people's things. I'm not near your window. I don't want to redistribute your things. It just seems odd to me that you view my desire to live my own life fairly as childish and superficial.

Even if you successfully argue against (1), you haven't argued against fairness as a concept or as a goal. You've only argued against a means for achieving it.

Fairness IS a 'concept'. Again, if you find value in persuing it as a personal 'goal' in your life, I have no quarrel with that. You would have to be clear and specific in your means of achieving 'universal fairness' before I could agree or not with those means. You've mentioned nothing in that regard, so what 'means' have I argued against? Redistribution of wealth?

I'm not saying fairness isn't a concept. Of course fairness is a concept. Above, I was saying that an argument against forcing one's own conception of fairness down another person's throat isn't an argument against the viability of the concept "fairness".

One, I steadfastly believe nothing. Second, you can use all sorts of 'tools' (logic, intuition, rationality, experimentation, empiricism, etc..) to argue and disagree with what I say. Perhaps you could use logic to convince me of a 'new truth'. If you find that you cannot support your position, logically, rationally, etc... perhaps it is YOU who might find a 'new truth'? I simply go with my (albeit subjective) experience and enlightenment... Nothing is carved in stone. Present a better argument and I might alter my 'position' in view of my new 'truth', and the 'reality' that it would reveal..

Point taken. I retract my use of the word "steadfastly".

As far as an argument for the existence of fairness:

1) Fairness is a concept. To pick one way of formulating: Something is fair when it is equitable to all parties involved.

2) There are people who attempt to generally act in an equitable manner: they try not to let their own interests have unreasonable weight in the face of the interests of others.

3) There exists at least one case in which a person attempting to act in an equitable manner in a given situation has succeeded in not giving their own personal interests unreasonably high weight as compared to the interests of the other parties involved in an interaction.

There's my argument. There's several loose points:

- I don't define what counts as unreasonable. That's fine: set the boundary for "unreasonable" somewhere, and I'll argue that there is at least one case that fulfills (3) by that definition of unreasonable.

- Nothing is in isolation. Thus, EVERY party is really involved in any given interaction. While this is true, I think it's reasonable for the purpose of a discussion like this to draw a line somewhere, and consider the interests of a finite (and reasonably small) number of parties.

What's your take on this argument? Are you willing to accept (1) as one valid description of a concept of fairness? What's your counterargument?

...if one's goal is to grow as a person: (to increase their own ability to see and seek truth, their ability to deal with whatever life throws at 'em, to increase their level of functionality in the world), that seeking fairness (particularly for others) has benefits.

Noble goals! I don't see 'fairness' as having anything to do with them and their acquisition though. What 'benefits'? Having had and achieved those goals myself, I never encountered 'fairness' as anything of value in the process. What is your egotistical position that you would wish to alter other people's lives to conform to your 'concepts'?? Doesn't everyone have their own 'concepts'?

You seem to be constantly presuming that my goal is to force other people to be like me. Why? I don't understand what I've said that gives you this opinion. Of course I argue for my worldview with people, but it seems to me I'm fairly openminded and, like you, wish to hear and understand others' perspectives to see if they have something I can learn from. Where do you get my "egotistical position" from? Why do you think I would disagree that everyone has their own concepts?

I've found a concept of fairness has helped me in my process of growth. I'm not saying that means everyone needs that concept in order to grow. I didn't even say it was the optimal way to grow. I merely said that a concept of fairness can have benefits. Why is it that my assertion that something has benefits egotistical?

"You cannot serve both "God" and "Mammon" at the same time."

This seems an out of place quote. It's essentially stating that one's bottom line can't be both devotion to "God" (which I often interpret in this circumstance as a devotion to discovering truth and becoming as locing a person as one can) and the acquisition of material wealth (which is a fairly common interpretation of what is meant by 'Mammon').

That doesn't in any way provide a counterargument to the belief that the greater one's understanding of reality (truth), the better one will be at being able to interpret what is an equitable outcome of a given situation.

If thine 'eye' is single, and you dilligently seek 'truth', whether heartless and ignorant or whatever, 'that' will be 'cured' as one reaches the 'depths' of 'understanding' and becomes 'enlightened'.

What are you saying? There are so many quotes around your words I'm not sure what you mean by any of them. What is "that"? What do you mean by "cured"? Could you rephrase this? How can one seek ignorant truth?

It will be the 'egoic reward' of your feeling that you are superior to others

I'm reviewing the writings between us on this thread to date. Judging by your claims that

1) Fairness doesn't exist
2) It is an ignorant and childish conception
3) One needs to "get past it" in order to reach a further stage of growth
4) You realize that it doesn't exist


It seems to me that what you're indicating is that you are superior by right of your disblief in fairness to those who believe in it. Am I misunderstanding you?

(after all, you are in a 'better' position then they are as you are 'helping' them)

Seems to me this is simply about facing truth. I AM in a better position than lots of folks when it comes to certain things. Like money. Or Education. Or influence. The half year I spent in India made that clear. It doesn't make me feel superior: I lucked out. I was born into one of the richer countries in the world, into a upper-middle class family, with lots of great opportunities. If anything, the realization that I have things a lot better than the majority of the world when it comes to opportunity, choice, and health makes me feel humble. I didn't earn that. It's just what I got. But to deny that I AM in a better position than others doesn't seem like modesty. It just seems like dishonesty.

One 'goal' or another.... not both.

Again, you make the statement. But I miss your argument for it. I understand that you think that fairness doesn't exist (and presumably can't exist), which would indeed oppose it to truth. And I've seen your arguments for why it's bad to force your views of fairness on another person, redistributing their wealth (for example). And I've seen your arguments that their is unfairness in the world. But I haven't seen your argument against the existence of fairness.

How do you define fairness? What is your argument for thinking that there are no cases of it?

The 'enlightened' throughout history, have never gone about trying to make the 'world' a better place. They have tried to point the way to the individual's own mind and encouraged people to access their own 'inner Truth', thereby making the INDIVIDUAL'S world a 'better place'. At this point, the concept of 'fairness' becoms moot.

Are you saying that practicing a discipline which involves attempting to treat others with compassion, and equitably doesn't have an impact on the way one perceives the world, and doesn't alter one's OWN world?

I never meant insult when I used the term superficial. I hope none was taken. I merely used it as an observation, not a judgement. It just seems to me that the only world that you actually CAN make a better place is YOUR WORLD! Not the worlds of others. That is THEIR work. Meddling in other's lives is 'treading water', as your 'job' is to become 'lucid' in your world. To become 'self aware' and 'self realized' and live according to the new reality that 'consciousness' creates is our personal work here. Before all else. One cannot 'know' or 'help' anyone 'till one 'knows' and 'helps' oneself. (Beams and motes in eyes?) Otherwise, one just spins one's wheels.

Okay: We are in absolute agreement that one cannot truly help other people till one has helped one's self, and that "self realization" is the first step one needs to take. But it seems like you are saying that's the ONLY step to take. You are saying that the ONLY world you can make better is your own personal one. I'm certainly not trying to force you to change your view. I simply disagree with it: I've had people in my life who have helped me grow. They helped me make my world a better place. They helped make me happier, more functional (of course in my own estimation, and those whose estimations I value, but there's no way around that), and I believe a better person than I would have been had it not been for their guidance in my life.

OK, I think I agree, basically, here with you. Then why were we wasting our time with the above discussion??? And, 'fair' to the 'dog eat dog' crowd, still means what is 'good and comfortable' to the individual 'dog eater'. Perhaps I'm not understanding your last paragraph as you use so many 'buzzwords' that you'd have to define for me to fully understand your 'intent'.

Sorry for too many buzzwords. 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.

Did that make more sense? It's 1:47 AM after a party, so I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well.

In any case: I'm definately enjoying discussing this with you. I think it's an important issue, you're certainly making me consider it in depth, and to re-assess my assumptions. I still believe that fairness exists (to the extent that words like "fairness" and "exists" are useful), but it's good for me to be able to build up a solid argument for why I believe that, and for exactly what it is that I am and am not asserting when I say that.

[Nameless]

Abu, I too am enjoying our discussion, thank you. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
I will attempt tomorrow to answer your post. The length tells of the time you invested and I'm too tired tonight to give it respectful thought. I WILL say, though, that there is a major misunderstanding going on and I take responsibility for it. I will try harder tomorrow to help you understand a bit what I'm trying to say. A great problem with me is that from my rather 'different perspective' many of our commonly used words have a 'different' meaning in my world. Sometimes, it is very difficult to translate and sometimes, impossible. An example would be 'Truth'. To speculate about it brings a 'concensus' definition.. When one finally 'achieves' Truth, the 'meaning' is completely different and unimagined. Yet the word must be used.
I have no trouble if a person's ethics require him to treat others fairly. That aught to cause no-one any pain... AND i imagine that if only one person practices 'fair' business in his life, then there is 'fairness' in the world. So, I'll have to amend my statement that there is no fairness in the world to a 'relatively negligible' amount. Way too little if your goal is 'universal happiness' (which hasn't been mine). But I do what little I can...
Real quick, though, when I spoke of 'feeling' about things, I was referring to feeling 'likes' and 'dislikes' (about that which we have no control) that we were talking about.

[Corvus]

After reading the astounding statement of your's, "What is more superficial than the truth?" I realize that perhaps we speak of different things. I Am not speaking of 'the truth', I Am speaking of the "Truth"! That which is not describable by words. That which is eternally symmetrical, always the same, un-wet by water, un-burned by fire, timeless, the 'ground' of all there is and is not, that which 'exists' beyond the 'greatest depth' imaginable.. there are millions of words telling what "Truth" is not, Truth is beyond words, beyond 'duality'. Superficial? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you misunderstood my useage of Truth to be to be applicable to the common definition. No such thing. I searched for 'ultimate truth' for many decades, when I use the term 'Truth', it is to this that I refer. Little truths in the world of illusions are illusions themselves. I wouldn't pollute the word 'Truth' with the mundane meaning. And, one never does 'find' the 'ultimate truth', one becomes that Truth.

Then we are at a stalemate. I don't believe in the "Truth" of which you speak, and you do not believe in fairness. Since you cannot prove its existence, or even describe it, your position is no different than the Christian who maintains a universal good exists.

Fairness does NOT exist as anything more than a figment of the imagination, a pretty concept. Perhaps you are unable to recognise metaphor? Any 'happiness I might feel, is unrelated to anything but this body and its feelings. My posessions are irrelevent. The world is SO unfair that I have trouble even believing anyone so naive (over 4years old) that actually believes he can make the world a 'fair' place. In Amerikkka, try being born beautiful, female with big tits, etc... and she doesn't need 'brains'! Try being born homely, skinny or fat, an 'unpleasant minority', etc... and you get 'bupkiss' your whole lonely, painful life. Fair? One born into wealth and posessions, one born into grinding poverty and you talk of fair??? You will eliminate the 'reality' of your universe HOW???? Do tell how you propose to 'level the playing field' here??

First of all, I never proposed to do anything. Secondly, how can you identify unfairness or less fairness when fairness does not exist at all. You are saying that it is "more fair" to be born into wealth and "less fair" to be born into poverty, presumably because poverty "grinds" one, as it were, when life is a struggle to live. If you can identify that one is in a worse condition than the other, why do you have trouble believing fairness exists? Your trouble is believe it can be realised. I think a lot of effort has gone into keeping the hungry fed, and in this country, finding jobs for the poor. Although I lament that the basic unit of society has become the job, where once it was the family, I still realise that though I am unemployed, I have a computer, electricity, running water, clean clothes, a roof over my head, and there is a small figure of people in western countries that do not. Necessities can, and are, being addressed. A poor family can apply for emergency housing, and even if they trash it, they will be given a new one. There are signigicantly less beggars on the street than there were 100 years ago, and very few people are forced into such dire straights that they need to steal a loaf of bread. To think that only 132 years ago, James Leadbeater, at 11 years old, stole some celery worth a shilling, and was sentenced to four days hard labour and a whipping with a birch. During the 19th century, there existed workhouses where people lived in constant squalor and discomfort, imposed upon them under a belief that it would encourage them to raise themselves out of poverty, sleeping in wooden crates resembling coffins, lying side-by-side, with not enough room to turn. If you are saying that things were better in the good old days, I believe your accusations of naivety are completely unfounded. If you can agree that things are somewhat better now, than surely "inequality" is something that can be addressed and reduced.

EVERYTHING exists subjectively. There is NO 'objective'. The concept that there can be 'objectivity' is the same deluded thinking that spawns the concept of 'fairness' in the world. You can try to be as 'fair' with other people as your christian morality and guilt will allow.

But I don't believe in objectivity, nor am I a Christian.

Yeah, reached for a board game that meets with the satisfaction for the rarified populace of 'game players'. You certainly couldn't be speaking of the populace of the planet? Why don't you try a little experiment? One day, ask everyone you meet if they think that life has been fair to them. I would think the answers would be starkly obvious, but, hey, I guess not for everyone.

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.

I am not catching your 'connection' between 'fairness' and the Amerikkkan 'justice system'?? Are you asserting that there IS one?? Are you asserting that the Amerikkkan 'justice system' is 'fair'? Are you serious? How old are you?? I guess that since you asked the question, you are serious... I'll give the 'short version'... You get all the 'fairness' and 'justice' that money can buy in your government's 'justice system'! Just ask O.J. Hahahah....

If perhaps you paid more attention to "superficial truths", rather than "deeper ones", you may have noticed that under my username my age - 20 - and my location - Australia - is plain to see. I never mentioned the "Amerikkkan justice system", and, indeed, know very little about it, never having encountered them or seen, on television, judges clothed in bedsheets with a clearly white supremacist ideology.

I would prefer that you keep this superciliousness (towards my age, experience, etc) to yourself. Although I may think Christianity is nonsense, and my first impression of someone who ignores basic points of grammar is that they are either lazy, stupid, young, or a combination of these, I try to avoid forming any definite conclusion, and allow for the fact that the Christian may have come to a realisation through a means I could never identify with or understand, or that the poor writer may in fact be a very intelligent dyslexic adult. This too is a kind of "fairness", which does not rely on the redistribution of property, by being equitable to all people until they give reason to lose it.

As for slavery, most of the working classes of people in this country are slaves... worse. Traditional 'slaves' had their medical taken care of, they had their clothing provided, they had their shelter provided, their food was likewise provided... Today, you work for a pathetically poor wage (ask all employees you meet in a day if they think that they are earning the right amount for the labor that they provide?) Are all their basic needs provided by the 'massas'? What do I think about slavery? I don't have a problem with it as long as the slaves are properly treated and cared for! Most today are not. Of course the real horror here is that once upon a time, a person knew that he was a slave. Today, you are so confused and deluded that you think that you are free. What a 'coup' for the corporate 'masters'. So sad and pathetic! You want to make the world a fair place? I wish you the best of luck, sincerely. You, and Don Quixote.

Whoever said the world is fair? Certainly not I. But I do believe it has a certain level of fairness. The only entity that can appropriate what you consider your own property is the government. Were I to take it away from you, I would face the punishment of a court. If I attacked your person or property and was caught, I would face the punishment of a court. Were I to rape or molest you, I would face the punishment of a court. I cannot treat a person as property, and, at least in this country, neither can my employer, who is contractually obliged to provide me with money in exchange for my services. My employer cannot beat me with a birch. If they withhold the money, they are in breach of the law. And so on. This is fair. Even if you believe the justice system is not fair, and favours the rich, you still have not answered my question as to whether life would be more fair if the justice system did not exist at all. We could have vigilantes, and duels to the death over point sof honour. Then "God" will have favoured the victor. Or we could go back to the Christian "charity" of the 19th century, popularised by the beadle in Oliver Twist.

Way too little if your goal is 'universal happiness' (which hasn't been mine).

Last note: I am not arguing for universal happiness, which is something that cannot be realised. I am arguing for the treatment of people as I wish myself to be treated. Often because I fear being in a similar predicament.

[Nameless]

B) Therefore, you don't feel anything about what happens in your life?

By 'feel', again, I meant like and dislike things over which we have no control. I should have been clearer. Sorry.

It strikes me as quite bizarre for you to make large numbers of assumptions about my beliefs, complaints, and practices based on my participation on a board which you also participate in, then to denigrate the beliefs that you attribute to me yet which I have nowhere asserted. Moreover, I think what I've talked about is striving for "fairness", not dislake and judgement of creation.

Since this is a christian site, I put my messege in christian context. You can put what I said in whatever context you like and the messege remains the same. I am no longer a christian, but what I said makes sense to me. Still 'valid' even in a 'context I don't personally hold.

Perhaps if there is some point or other of "God's" creation that you don't "like", you might look to your having 'likes and dislikes' for error instead of "God's" creation?

That argument is invalid: presuming I am a part of God's creation, finding error in my likes and dislikes is finding error with an aspect of God's creation.

I think that if you tried to understand what I'm saying, you could. If you don't 'like' an aspect of your world that you have no control over, I'm merely saying that what you DO have control over, ie; your 'likes and dislikes', can be altered to achieve a more ... comfortable state.

Truthfulness requires one to 'seek' and 'find' "Truth" and to 'become' that truth. Fairness is a lie. There is no such thing. It is inconsistant with "Truth". Striving for that which has no existence seems foolish at best, and 'deluded' at worst, a complete waste of one's time.

Everytime anyone makes an effort to create something that is essentially new, they have striven for that which has no existence.

I recant. One act of 'fairness' in the universe, even the 'thought' thereof gives 'it' existence. I was coming from a more social, poetic perspective (I can feel all the 'pain' around me caused by (ignorance) 'unfairness') instead of an intellectual perspective.

Again, I'm assuming your Christianity

Until I know what the word "Christianity" means to you, I can't tell you whether I am or not. Certainly it seems like you draw your assumption from some fairly shaky threads, at least by what I judge you to mean by Christianity.

Again, I mean nothing by it, I use it merely as a 'context' for communicating a concept.

"But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? "

Are you going to tell me that the quote above doesn't presume the existence of fairness? I remember the reply and the parable. I think I just took something different out of it than you.

Poor fellow in the parable seemed to 'assume' a 'fairness' in life that he found lacking, much to his disillusionment and subsequent dismay.

Are you arguing that one should take no responsibility for how one's actions impact another? (I'm not condemning that, I'm just trying to get a handle on what you're saying)

No, I'm not saying that, but your feelings resultant from our 'interaction' are yours. I am not responsible for your feelings, am I?

...Or do you think there's something deeper wrong with fascism?

Yes, it causes undue pain for the masses, usually. Unless we have a benevolent despot, which is my preferred form of gov't.

I'm confused as to why you think that someone's having a belief in the worth of working towards fairness equates to them feeling like they have the right to re-distribute other people's things. I'm not near your window. I don't want to redistribute your things. It just seems odd to me that you view my desire to live my own life fairly as childish and superficial.

First, I meant do harm by my statement of 'childish and superficial'. Forgive me. It is 'childish' to play in the sand at the beach, yet adults do it. It is not 'bad' or 'wrong', just childish. I did not apply that to your living your life with a sense of 'fairness'. That, I generally try to do myself, realizing that it is just a 'grain of sand on a very large beach'! Life, is unfair! I guess that it matters not whether we act 'fairly' toward others or not. Life remains 'unfair'. I, too, have been known to tilt at windmills once. I'm just getting a bit better at recognising 'windmills'. To remake the world as a 'fair' place for all (and I'm sure that some would complain anyway) everyone would have to be absolutely 'homogenous', look alike, have the same intellect, have the same possessions, the same education, live in the same climate, etc..... That was what I meant by talking about 'redistribution of wealth'.

I'm not saying fairness isn't a concept. Of course fairness is a concept. Above, I was saying that an argument against forcing one's own conception of fairness down another person's throat isn't an argument against the viability of the concept "fairness".

True.

As far as an argument for the existence of fairness:

1) Fairness is a concept. To pick one way of formulating: Something is fair when it is equitable to all parties involved.

2) There are people who attempt to generally act in an equitable manner: they try not to let their own interests have unreasonable weight in the face of the interests of others.

3) There exists at least one case in which a person attempting to act in an equitable manner in a given situation has succeeded in not giving their own personal interests unreasonably high weight as compared to the interests of the other parties involved in an interaction.

I agree. No counterarguments. Peace. As I said, I was coming from a 'different perspective'. I now understand your perspective and am in general agreement. Sheesh... this is a lousy way to have an argument.. Hehehehe....

"You cannot serve both "God" and "Mammon" at the same time."

This seems an out of place quote. It's essentially stating that one's bottom line can't be both devotion to "God" (which I often interpret in this circumstance as a devotion to discovering truth and becoming as locing a person as one can) and the acquisition of material wealth (which is a fairly common interpretation of what is meant by 'Mammon').

I was simply referring to the fact that one cannot have two goals with maximum sincerity. One can persue the goal of being 'fair' with maximum sincerity, or one can persue the goal of finding 'Truth'... Who knows, perhaps achieving either one will lead to the fruition of the other also?

That doesn't in any way provide a counterargument to the belief that the greater one's understanding of reality (truth), the better one will be at being able to interpret what is an equitable outcome of a given situation.

The greater one's 'understanding', the more 'enhanced' all areas in life become. If one's efforts turn toward 'fairness' than, true, those efforts will be more successful. Whatever you choose to do, or do nothing, all is the same, ultimately. With 'understanding' of the nature of 'reality', 'enlightenment', one becomes.. 'enhanced'. But there is nothing that you need to do. All is play. All is permissible at that stage.

How can one seek ignorant truth?

One is ignorant. One seeks 'Truth". As one begins to achieve one's goal, one's ignorance is (cured) replaced by understanding.

I'm reviewing the writings between us on this thread to date. Judging by your claims that

1) Fairness doesn't exist
2) It is an ignorant and childish conception
3) One needs to "get past it" in order to reach a further stage of growth
4) You realize that it doesn't exist

Again, I recant. Fairness does exist, just in amounts that are too small to 'tip a scale'.

(after all, you are in a 'better' position then they are as you are 'helping' them)

Seems to me this is simply about facing truth. I AM in a better position than lots of folks when it comes to certain things. Like money. Or Education. Or influence. The half year I spent in India made that clear. It doesn't make me feel superior: I lucked out. I was born into one of the richer countries in the world, into a upper-middle class family, with lots of great opportunities. If anything, the realization that I have things a lot better than the majority of the world when it comes to opportunity, choice, and health makes me feel humble. I didn't earn that. It's just what I got. But to deny that I AM in a better position than others doesn't seem like modesty. It just seems like dishonesty.

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?

Okay: We are in absolute agreement that one cannot truly help other people till one has helped one's self, and that "self realization" is the first step one needs to take. But it seems like you are saying that's the ONLY step to take. You are saying that the ONLY world you can make better is your own personal one.

Perhaps the sincere seeking of 'Truth', no matter what 'path' one might take will yield 'universal fruit'.
"To master one thing is to master all things."

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?

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! *__-

[Nameless]

If you can agree that things are somewhat better now, than surely "inequality" is something that can be addressed and reduced.

True. If you read my conversation with Abu, you'll see that I have recanted and do admit that 'fairness' exists. The amount, however, universally, is negligible. Yes, some suffering can be 'reduced'.

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'.


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.

... 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.

I am arguing for the treatment of people as I wish myself to be treated. Often because I fear being in a similar predicament.

I believe the translation of the 'Golden Rule' is "Do NOT do unto others that which you would NOT have done to you." Sounds like a 'good' rule, as far as rules go... if one wishes to be well regarded amongst one's fellows.