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.

[dangerdan]

Yeah, it is probably a bit off the original topic. That's cool.

here are some interesting definitions from dictionary.com

Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator.
Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions.
Being in accordance with relative merit or significance: She wanted to receive her fair share of the proceeds.
Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics: a fair tactic.

[concerro]

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.

1.It depends on the situation. Sometimes fairness is being getting equal treatment, and other times it is people getting what they deserve.
For example: If you have a bachelor's degree and I have a masters then I will get more money than you which is fair but not equal

2.It is unfair when the above condition is not met assuming all things are equal, because if you have a bachelor's degree you still may earn more than my masters depending on your experience and the company you work for.

3.If people are treated unfairly it causes many social problems. People who are treated unfairly often rebel in some form or another

4.We want fair treatment for ourselves as well as others. Also if we see someone getting unfair treatment then we realise we could be next.

5.It is possible and most of the time people do get fair treatment, but due to human nature and greed it wont always happen because someone is always trying to "get over".

[Xanadu Moo]

1. What is fairness?
Isn't it the same as right and wrong? Good and evil? It would seem that diverse cultures throughout the world have agreed on most aspects of what is fair, in principle anyway.

But in practice, I'm not aware of any large-scale societies that are able to maintain any high level of fairness. I think fairness is an ideal that we realistically don't expect to have in this life (other than utopians).

Evil postpones fairness. It's not fair in this life that soldiers fighting for world peace have to sacrifice their lives, but an unjust world demands unfair things to happen. Ultimately, everyone will receive their eternal reward, whatever level they have earned. No one deserving justice will not receive it, even though they might have lost it temporarily.

Justice isn't relative to a situation. If the end justifies the means, then the means were also just in the end.

I'd say the concept of fairness is one of the absolutes in our existence. It's not arbitrary, but there are varying degrees of perception and that's why there needs to be direction from a higher source to help us sort out those things.

4. Where does our desire for fairness originate?
I believe it to be innate. We don't stop trying for justice, and ultimately we have a desire to achieve it in its perfected state. Some people don't project that to being after this life, but I think that's what it is working in all of us.

Not all will agree on the same conclusion as to what is just, as not all are capable of making those judgments due to corruption. A civil society has to determine which judgments are best or it will fail.

Are there any groups of people that are apathetic to fairness? I'm not talking about segregration, but no fairness for anyone, including themselves? Seems like a self-defeating proposition, since a group can't be satisfied with its freedom being controlled by someone else.

[Corvus]

Are there any groups of people that are apathetic to fairness? I'm not talking about segregration, but no fairness for anyone, including themselves?

I don't see how that's possible. If they allow themselves to be treated unfairly because they want to, then, although this appears unfair to others, this is fair to them, and we are wrong to apply the label of victim to someone who does not want it.

I can imagine there exists people quite willing to become slaves, not only of body, but of mind - enslaved to their ideologies. In "The True Believer", a book about the nature of mass movements, Eric Hoffer describes how the slave is often content with their position because, amongst other details, all responsibility their actions are transferred to another. Consider what the pitbull-faced Ms. England said when confronted by allegations of abuse at Abu Ghraib; "I was told to do it." It is the newly liberated slave that is the most discontent, because they are burdened with freedom, and all responsibility for their failure rests on their shoulders.

[dangerdan]

Ultimately, everyone will receive their eternal reward, whatever level they have earned. No one deserving justice will not receive it, even though they might have lost it temporarily.

I must say that I find this view of the world worries me somewhat. People in power used to use this view to justify all sorts of atrocities. The extreme view of this is ‘kill them all and let God sort them out.’ As soon as people begin to view terrestrial happiness as somewhat downgraded, it’s a recipe for a humanitarian crisis. Very dangerous indeed.

[Xanadu Moo]

dangerdan,

I agree that people quite often use the cloak of the word of God to justify the unjustifiable, and that is unfortunate as well as unavoidable. However, we need to keep in mind that it doesn't alter the veracity of the original statement. It's either true or it isn't, irrespective of how some humans abuse it.

Secularists are also guilty of such atrocities. Indeed, what could be just as dangerous -- even when not invoking divine authority -- is humans trying to play God themselves and invent justice for their own benefit, also known as corruption of the word of God.

[mrmufin]

1. What is fairness?

A individual assessment of just treatment in a given situation. Consider a couple involved in a bitter divorce: both may have radically different notions of a fair settlement.

2. How would something be considered fair or not fair?

Fairness is an individual conclusion, determined by personal consideration of events.

3. Why should something being fair be even considered important?

Maybe because unfairness sucks? The result of being treated unfairly may cause us to evaluate what fair treatment would consist of. Empathy, compassion, and desire for consistency and equivalency helps us establish guidelines and local ordinances. Just powers are derived with the consent of the governed in most civilized societies.

4. Where does our desire for fairness originate?

I suspect that the desire for fairness has complex origins. As has already been pointed out in this topic, what is considered fair on a broad scale tends to evolve slowly. The dwindling incidences of witch trials, slavery, stoning, and denial of voting rights are all evidences that perhaps arriving at "codified fairness" is a long term fine-tuning process. We're figuring it all out as we trudge along.

5. Is it even possible for things to be fair?

On a broad scale, most likely, but on an ultimate scale, probably not. I doubt there will ever be Universal agreement as to whether or not certain things (abortion, the death penalty, income tax rates) are fair and just. However, it is perfectly plausible that individuals can operate by mutual consent toward mutual advantage on a regular basis.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Abulafia]

1. What is fairness?
Isn't it the same as right and wrong? Good and evil?

Good/Evil and Fairness/Unfairness certainly must be related. But I'm not sure they are identical.

For example:
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" can be seen as a reasonably fair law (particularly in its original context where it was meant to be a limiting factor to vengeance: if someone pokes your eye out, you can poke out his eye but you can't kill him, etc.). But is it good? Certainly Christ seems to indicate that it's better to forego the eye-poking than to do what may be fair.

On the flip-side, from an Evolutionist's point of view, natural selection is a good thing. It's what allows for the growth in complexity and ability which has led to all of our current flora/fauna. Yet it seems profoundly unfair.

[Nameless]

I don't know who took the board-game notion of 'fair' and attempted to apply it to real life, but there is NO SUCH thing. What happens, happens. What is, is. The idea of 'fair' is a short sighted, childish notion. Wishful thinking. Believing in 'fairness' will lead to disappointment in its lack. Fairness (the concept thereof) is equivalent to 'judgment'. One NEVER has sufficient 'information' to judge and likewise, never has enough information to be 'fair'. Unless it is a childs board game. Truth might be found in the 'world'. Fairness will not. Yeah, I know that it is 'unfair', but one must grow up eventually. Or stay juvenile with all sorts of rationalizations about 'fairness'.

[Abulafia]

I don't know who took the board-game notion of 'fair' and attempted to apply it to real life, but there is NO SUCH thing. What happens, happens. What is, is. The idea of 'fair' is a short sighted, childish notion. Wishful thinking. Believing in 'fairness' will lead to disappointment in its lack. Fairness (the concept thereof) is equivalent to 'judgment'. One NEVER has sufficient 'information' to judge and likewise, never has enough information to be 'fair'. Unless it is a childs board game. Truth might be found in the 'world'. Fairness will not. Yeah, I know that it is 'unfair', but one must grow up eventually. Or stay juvenile with all sorts of rationalizations about 'fairness'.

I think this is a fairly typical "realist" view. It seems to me that it captures one element of the truth, but misses another.

Of course a human notion of "fairness" doesn't pervade everything that happens in the universe.

But what you dismiss as a "short sighted, childish notion" can actually be a powerful motivator, and a force for good (if you dismiss good as another "short sighted, childish notion", feel free to read "good" as "an increased degree of overall happiness", or the positive notion of your choice).

I've spent some time in groups with the view you express of "fairness" being a hopelessly naive concept. I've also spent time in communities where fairness is seen as something worth striving for. Hands down, the latter have been the environments which are more positive, more conducive to inspiration, creativity, and growth.

While you're right to dismiss the idea that we can find absolute fairness in the world, or that we have any right to expect it, you seem to throw a rather important baby out with the bathwater: not only can we strive to create environments which are "fair" to our best approximation, doing so can benefit all those therein.

Even if you're looking at it from a "everyone for themselves" perspective, or from a "we're not primarily rational, we're creatures of instinct, emotion and habit" point of view, there are good arguments as to why something akin to fairness is an efficient and beneficial thing for one to seek.

It sounds like you've been hurt by misplaced trust in others' sense of fairness. I'd be interested in understanding your position better. Perhaps I'm misrepresenting or mis-judging your view.