Do you think that life is fair?

Dean wrote: whay? is it 'cos I said poo?

Well, yes. Also, because it seems you're hyper right now 

Equality 7-2521 wrote: An intelligent medieval person would just recognize his life was different. Disparity does not equal unfairness.

If disparity doesn't equal unfairness, then unfairness does not exist, and people's perception of it cannot be explained.


Edited by RoyFairbank - April 25 2012 at 13:23

RoyFairbank wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: An intelligent medieval person would just recognize his life was different. Disparity does not equal unfairness.  If disparity doesn't equal unfairness, then unfairness does not exist, and people's perception of it cannot be explained. The reason something is unfair is that it is out of sync with what one could do or wouldn't have to do. Its only not unfair when there is no possibility of either option. A poor man may perceive others, and conclude that he could be rich, therefore it is unfair that he isn't when they are. A man who lost a son in a war sees others with their sons, and may conclude that it is unfair he doesn't have his son If there was no wealth disparity, there would be no unfairness about wealth If the man hadn't lost his son, he couldn't feel that was unfair he was missing his while others had one. If the serf felt there was no way for him to be a modern man, then there is no disparity, and no unfairness If he perceives that he can step through that time portal and live a different life, he may feel unfairness.

Nearly... those (other) examples do not equate to the situation of a medieval person.

Edited by Dean - April 25 2012 at 14:09

Fairness is a purely human construct, there's no way life could be fair or unfair unless you are a theist.

RoyFairbank wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: An intelligent medieval person would just recognize his life was different. Disparity does not equal unfairness.  If disparity doesn't equal unfairness, then unfairness does not exist, and people's perception of it cannot be explained.

Fairness doesn't exist, yet humans exhibits an incredibly strong of inner sense of what it is. I'd say that it exists. Does poetic justice similarly not exist?

I see the point you're getting at, and I agree to an extent, but it's false how you've stated it. I have blue eyes and you have brown eyes, nobody is really going to say that's unfair. I answer a question on a test, and it gets marked wrong. You answer a question identically on a test, but the teacher marks it right because he wants to get into your pants. Most people are going to say that's unfair. Disparate =/= unfairness. You could say it's a necessary condition for unfairness, but the equality wouldn't hold.

A theist could say that life isn't fair, but the afterlife is.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: RoyFairbank wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: An intelligent medieval person would just recognize his life was different. Disparity does not equal unfairness.  If disparity doesn't equal unfairness, then unfairness does not exist, and people's perception of it cannot be explained. Fairness doesn't exist, yet humans exhibits an incredibly strong of inner sense of what it is. I'd say that it exists. Does poetic justice similarly not exist? I see the point you're getting at, and I agree to an extent, but it's false how you've stated it. I have blue eyes and you have brown eyes, nobody is really going to say that's unfair. I answer a question on a test, and it gets marked wrong. You answer a question identically on a test, but the teacher marks it right because he wants to get into your pants. Most people are going to say that's unfair. Disparate =/= unfairness. You could say it's a necessary condition for unfairness, but the equality wouldn't hold.

Fairness / unfairness exists, but it is limited to context.  If I am playing Monopoly and I am the banker and I am sneaking fifties into my stash, then the game is unfair.

But it does not follow from my cheating that "life" is (or could be) fair or unfair.

Epig: Yes, yes, we sometimes use words in a general sense that doesn't encompass all possible inclusions, very good, you make this point quite regularly.Dean: You gotta let this hard-on you have for me go. This thing you're doing following me around and picking on all my posts... it's just not fair.

Edited by Textbook - April 25 2012 at 16:18

What is life? Are we talking about an unreachable abstraction?

There is life as a human in human society,

and "life".... abstract existence....

Abstract existence as an abstraction intrinsically has no meaning, so of course it can neither be fair or unfair....

Concrete life, as a certain human being in a certain human society, is a different matter....

As has been said, it would then be a subjective matter, I would add, based on perceived disparity....

If the disparity is not percieved... then it would not be unfair. The serf in the example may or may not perceive disparity, as I said, he may see his life as superior... it is really irrelevant. If he does happen to perceive a negative disparity, he is sensing unfairness.

On the other hand, if he thought his lifestyle was superior, then perhaps he would sense a disparity in his favor, unfairness in his favor. So unfairness does not have to be negative or positive, or one or the other.

As for the understanding about disparity and unfairness, it is borne out even by the dictionary definition:

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I can give you 1000 examples to demonstrate that there's no equality of concepts. I could probably do a literature search that reveals the same thing has been shown experimentally. It's just unrealistic to say that they represent the same thing.

There is some type of disparity in every example of unfairness, I think you are being to restrictive in your understanding of disparity, and too abstract about unfairness. If it is not based on the cognition of differences, what is it based on?

As I have pointed out, unfairness is not necessarily negative or positive. It is not some abstract state of negativity, but the product of you or something being in a certain real position vis a vis potential selfs, situations, or similar others/objects which allows an understanding of being unallowed to fulfill said potential, or being allowed to do so while others/or different objects do not fulfill potential in relation to self, situation or object. The range of things and situations covered by this is immense, and not limited to any one example or simply "jealousy."

Unfairness is the subjective side of Disparity, its objective side.

Unfairness should not be abstracted into just a negative feeling, which renders it incomprehensible. Anything "bad" (abstraction) is "unfair" (abstraction) and life (abstract existence) is not "good" (abstraction) or "bad" (abstraction), so it is not "unfair" (abstraction) ... what does that even mean? This is idealistic analysis divorced from any materialistic analysis, but best not to get into that again.



 




Edited by RoyFairbank - April 25 2012 at 18:56