Why is life not fair?

[Magic Poriferan]

No.

It directly addresses it.

The context of the thread subject as it pertains to fairness of outcome rather than fairness of opportunity.

This thread is not about fairness of outcome vs fairness of opportunity. It's about whether or not it is any kind of fair at all. And I'm saying it is not any kind of fair. Not intrinsically.

But the best I can make of what you said is that you are arguing that because every outcome is one in a series of outcomes, that pursing good outcomes is a bad policy. If that is what you are saying, that is a terrible argument. I'm not going to elaborate on why it is terrible unless you confirm that this is what you are trying to say.

As for the first part, I seriously cannot make sense of it. This part.

Really. No indication or rational basis. Tell me then- which natural laws of physics discriminate and bend to offer which elements in the universe special treatment?

What does that mean? Are you suggesting that I'm saying that some part of the universe bends to give someone special treatment? Because that's practically the opposite of what I'm saying.

But the first sentence seems to suggest that you think that there is an indication or rational basis that the universe is fair? And the question you asked me has something to do with that?

That's my best attempt.

 

[anticlimatic]

This thread is not about fairness of outcome vs fairness of opportunity. It's about whether or not it is any kind of fair at all. And I'm saying it is not any kind of fair. Not intrinsically. But the best I can make of what you said is that you are arguing that because every outcome is one in a series of outcomes, that pursing good outcomes is a bad policy. If that is what you are saying, that is a terrible argument. I'm not going to elaborate on why it is terrible unless you confirm that this is what you are trying to say. As for the first part, I seriously cannot make sense of it. This part. What does that mean? Are you suggesting that I'm saying that some part of the universe bends to give someone special treatment? Because that's practically the opposite of what I'm saying. But the first sentence seems to suggest that you think that there is an indication or rational basis that the universe is fair? And the question you asked me has something to do with that? That's my best attempt.

Working towards good outcomes is great; working towards fair outcomes is impossible.

If physics doesnt bend it's rules, then it enforces them fairly...and since physics is the official system of rules in which life acts itself out, how can you suggest there is no intrinsic fairness in it? The only way that is possible is if the only type of fairness you can wrap your head around is fairness of outcome.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Working towards good outcomes is great; working towards fair outcomes is impossible.

Clarify the distinction.

If physics doesnt bend it's rules, then it enforces them fairly...and since physics is the official system of rules in which life acts itself out, how can you suggest there is no fairness in it?

Because fairness is a moral concept,and the laws of physics do not coincidentally work within the bounds of any moral philosophy.

It does not follow to say that everyone does everything within a set of laws, then everything that is done and happens must be fair.

Indeed, if we followed this logic, if you stuck to it consistently, then you must think absolutely nothing is unfair because everything happens within the bounds of physics. But I remember you not long ago complaining about moderator bias, so I'm guessing you have a concept of fairness and you don't think everything that happens within the laws of physics is fair.

And fairness is basically about one person's life compared to another, and people's lives are discrete and finite, so we can make such comparisons. I don't think one can credibly argue that it is fair that some people get to randomly be born with crippling congenital disorders and some don't. There is no fairness between the lives of those people. But your argument would suggest that there is just because it all takes place within the laws of physics.

 

[highlander]

Do the appropriate people ever get punished? Doesn't seem like it.

I can think of one person who did.

 

[anticlimatic]

Clarify the distinction. Because fairness is a moral concept,and the laws of physics do not coincidentally work within the bounds of any moral philosophy.

Sorry but fairness has nothing to do with morality. It pertains simply to rules and acting within them legitimately. Morality can be injected into it, but then it becomes contradictory. Outcome vs opportunity etc, where one opposes the other.

But I remember you not long ago complaining about moderator bias, so I'm guessing you have a concept of fairness and you don't think everything that happens within the laws of physics is fair.

Fairness relies on elements abiding by the rules in any particular context. Sometimes the elements don't have to abide by them, and unfairness occurs. Sometimes (such as in the laws of physics) they don't have a choice, and fairness is forced. It isn't a matter of everything is fair or nothing is fair, it's a matter of 'fairness exists in places, and it is non negotiable.' You suggested that it exists nowhere naturally. You're wrong.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Sorry but fairness has nothing to do with morality.

That's pretty much a conversation stopping stupid statement. Fairness is inseparable from a concept of what is just, which comes under what is moral.

But I'll try to carry on.

It pertains simply to rules and acting within them legitimately.

So it makes absolutely no difference what those rules are?

And it makes absolutely no difference if those rules actually have no purpose or reason?

And it makes no difference if those rules apply everywhere, internally, and cannot be escaped?

I don't think you can judge such laws the way you'd judge rules established by people.

And how, pray tell, would oen not work within the laws of physics legitimately?

Fairness relies on elements abiding by the rules in any particular context. Sometimes the elements don't have to abide by them, and unfairness occurs. Sometimes (such as in the laws of physics) they don't have a choice, and fairness is forced.

There's no context when it comes to the laws of physics. There is no purpose. And there is no alternative. So you're effectively saying that if something exists, it is fair. You've exploded the meaning of fairness to the point that there is intrinsically no meaningful way to call anything unfair, and therefore, to call anything fair either.

It isn't a matter of everything is fair or nothing is fair, it's a matter of 'fairness exists in places, and it is non negotiable.' You suggested that it exists nowhere naturally. You're wrong.

I'm not sure what I said that had to do with everything being fair or nothing being fair. But this whole "fairness exists in places" thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I stand by my point, fairness has no real meaning outside of a comparative one between peoples' lives.

So again, you would say it is fair that some people are born with crippling congenital disorders and some are not, at random?

I would say that when it comes to whether or not life is fair for the person born with the disorder, it makes no difference that there is a consistent law of physics everywhere in the universe and for all of time before and after their lives. Their life is stuck in their body, only for as long as they live, and they will have to operate their entire life within the confines of their disorder, which they have for absolutely no justification, just random chance. Their life is going to be hard for no reason, someone else's life is going to be less hard for no reason. Within the context of life, the only lives they will experience, you can't really call their positions impartial in a meaningful way. They will not have the same odds, the same opportunities, at any point in their lives. And you can't even begin to call it just, because, as I said, it is without justification, there's no reason for it.

So there's no guarantee of people being on the same playing field, and there's no rhyme or reason for anything. It's definitively not fair.

 

[The Cat]

 

[anticlimatic]

That's pretty much a conversation stopping stupid statement. Fairness is inseparable from a concept of what is just, which comes under what is moral.

But I'll try to carry on.

Fairness.
noun
1.
the state, condition, or quality of being fair

Fair
adjective
1.
in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.

Conversation stopping stupid indeed.

So it makes absolutely no difference what those rules are?

And it makes absolutely no difference if those rules actually have no purpose or reason?

And it makes no difference if those rules apply everywhere, internally, and cannot be escaped?

I don't think you can judge such laws the way you'd judge rules established by people.

And how, pray tell, would oen not work within the laws of physics legitimately?

It's all relative to the set of imposed rules, which can be anything you or anyone wants them to be. There is no inherent purpose or reason for the rules themselves. 'Fairness' is the only thing with intrinsic purpose and it is singular. Whether it be forced (as with physics) or optional (as in traffic laws), it's purpose is 'balance.' Equality. For every reaction, and equal and opposite reaction.

I'm not sure what I said that had to do with everything being fair or nothing being fair.

*Yawn*:

It's about whether or not it is any kind of fair at all. And I'm saying it is not any kind of fair.

But this whole "fairness exists in places" thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I stand by my point, fairness has no real meaning outside of a comparative one between peoples' lives.

Suit yourself, but that's awfully shallow. And ultimately pointless. Fairness is an enormous concept with implications that touch everything on every level.

So again, you would say it is fair that some people are born with crippling congenital disorders and some are not, at random?

I think the relationship between randomization and fairness is fascinating; like shuffling cards, or flipping a coin before a 'fair' game.

So there's no guarantee of people being on the same playing field, and there's no rhyme or reason for anything. It's definitively not fair.

Precisely why I say that limiting your understanding of fairness to a comparative one between people in the direct and complete sense that you are doing is pointless. Like watching a chess player play chess at a volleyball player who is playing volleyball back at him. There are other systems that human beings can/do participate in that are fair, however. Just depends on which tickets they buy for which rides, and how well built/enforced those rides are. This forum, for instance, is one of them.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

It's not fair when life doesn't go your way.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Conversation stopping stupid indeed.

That's funny. When I look up fairness, I get

"impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination."

Whoa! Conflict. What do you do when there are two slightly different definitions?!

The salient points remain. One, the only reason anyone discusses fairness is moral. People demand fairness, and debate whether or not things are or aren't fair, for moral reasons. People put moral stock in the concept of fairness. Two, the universe does not qualify as impartial in the only context in which such a thing is practically meaningful, as I already explained (but you didn't respond it).

It's all relative to the set of imposed rules, which can be anything you or anyone wants them to be.

Well, no, not if the rules we're talking about are the laws of physics, which is what you're insisting on. But if you're saying that we can choose which rules we follow, then at the moment I would think you're undermining your own position, as you'd basically be letting on to the fact that the laws of physics are not the primary rules we are going by, that the universe is not intrinsically fair, things are only in fair in terms of the rules we have to take the initiative to decide, and from there we'd be incapable of escaping moral debate about how we choose which rules to establish.

There is no inherent purpose or reason for the rules themselves.

There presumably is if they are rules constructed by people. There isn't if it's the rules of the universe, like the laws physics, but that should just redirect you to my points about why it's silly to talk about the laws of physics as if they were civil laws or rules to a game.

'Fairness' is the only thing with intrinsic purpose and it is singular. Whether it be forced (as with physics) or optional (as in traffic laws), it's purpose is 'balance.' Equality. For every reaction, and equal and opposite reaction.

Do you even know what you're saying? Because it increasingly sounds like this is all improvised pseudo-profundity one might rattle off at 2:00am, perhaps while slightly drunk.

*Yawn*:

Did you know the words any, every, and nothing mean different things?

Suit yourself, but that's awfully shallow. And ultimately pointless. Fairness is an enormous concept with implications that touch everything on every level.

How on earth would something be rendered pointless by only being relevant in the context of peoples' lives? You know, nothing has a point outside of the experience of sentient beings. So, being relevant to life pretty much encompasses the entire realm in which anything has a point. And as for the second part, nothing I said contradicts that either. Everything I said is perfectly compatible to having enormous implications that touch everything on every level, at least as far as life goes. Unless by everything you mean that fairness is relevant even to the inanimate stuff throughout the universe, like clouds whirling around Jupiter, because I'm saying no, fairness really has no implications for that.

I think the relationship between randomization and fairness is fascinating; like shuffling cards, or flipping a coin before a 'fair' game.

Precisely why I say that limiting your understanding of fairness to a comparative one between people in the direct and complete sense that you are doing is pointless. Like watching a chess player play chess at a volleyball player who is playing volleyball back at him. There are other systems that human beings can/do participate in that are fair, however. Just depends on which tickets they buy for which rides, and how well built/enforced those rides are. This forum, for instance, is one of them.

The entire point is that it's not impartial, and it's not just, so it's not fair. That's all explained, mostly in the stuff you didn't quote.

Look, you are broadly stating your position, but you haven't really fleshed it out. I've given arguments for what I think about this that you have not responded to, so this is pointless. You're stating and re-stating your original position without adjusting and responding to my points. Like the fairness and game randomization thing; any response to that I can think of would just be a re-statement of something I've already said that you haven't addressed so far. So what would be the point in saying it yet again so you can not address it again? And you know, that's a thing you tend to do. You leave out much of the bulk of peoples' arguments and skip over everything that might challenge you. In so far as you've actually written anything that's required new material from me, I have to write everything in multiple contingencies since all of your stuff is opaque drivel that looks like it could well mean two or three different things. I feel like I have to keep providing a different response for each of the things it looks like you might be trying to say (and sometimes instead I just opt for pointing how ridiculous this stuff looks).

Basically, you're quoting my posts for virtually no reason since you mostly don't respond to the content, and then use it as a white board to write pretentious nonsense. I think that will be sufficiently apparent to any discerning individual, and I see no reason to carry on here.

 

[Mole]

Love and Fairness

We have discovered that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so reasonably and rationally we decided to limit power, not to abolish power but to limit power, we still need power for accomplishment but we limit its corruption by liberal democracy.

This is the genius of liberal democracy, it limits power, and opens the world for the possibility of empathy and creativity.

And it is true empathy and creativity are not limited by fairness, empathy and creativity are springing delight, and whatever we love grows, and all is fair in love and war.

 

[Tellenbach]

I'm not sure "fairness" is a good thing. Many great people were shaped by the challenges they faced and it's the "unfairness" of their situation that motivates them to succeed.

 

[anticlimatic]

The salient points remain. One, the only reason anyone discusses fairness is moral. People demand fairness, and debate whether or not things are or aren't fair, for moral reasons. People put moral stock in the concept of fairness.

Maybe in your circles the only reason anyone discusses fairness is moral, since moral indignation is how people of your ilk tend to push their agendas, but in my sphere of like minded competitive enthusiasts it's almost exclusively used in the 'fair fight' context, which has nothing to do with morality. As I already mentioned, one can inject morality into the concept of fairness for obvious reasons (the most obvious of which being the 'just minded' sub-definition of it), but on that level (as I also already mentioned) it becomes a self defeating debate of fairness of opportunity vs fairness of outcome; fairness of outcome being the only type of fairness that you are predictably capable of comprehending, per your stereotypically millennial socialist world view. I believe I already addressed this in one of my first responses to your idiotic comment about there being no fairness in the world, which incidentally is the only point I really care to discuss with you.

Two, the universe does not qualify as impartial in the only context in which such a thing is practically meaningful, as I already explained (but you didn't respond it).

The thing about meaning and morality (your two favorite aspects of this discussion apparently), is that they're subjective. I don't particularly care what you subjectively think is meaningful, and I don't particularly care what you subjectively think is moral, so I don't particularly care to discuss either. I can say, however, that outside of your narrow context of meaning (whatever that is), the universe is absolutely impartial to everything in it.

Do you even know what you're saying?

I do, yes.

Did you know the words any, every, and nothing mean different things?

If it's come to this level of pedanticism, you must really be getting desperate for an out.

How on earth would something be rendered pointless by only being relevant in the context of peoples' lives?

Because that is not a system of rules in which you will find any degree of fairness ever. Clearly you are hung up on it and personally feel it's the only system of life that matters, but it's not. Which is why I called it short sighted to think so; and why I initially called you out in the first place.

Look, you are broadly stating your position, but you haven't really fleshed it out. I've given arguments for what I think about this that you have not responded to, so this is pointless. You're stating and re-stating your original position without adjusting and responding to my points. Like the fairness and game randomization thing; any response to that I can think of would just be a re-statement of something I've already said that you haven't addressed so far. So what would be the point in saying it yet again so you can not address it again? And you know, that's a thing you tend to do. You leave out much of the bulk of peoples' arguments and skip over everything that might challenge you. In so far as you've actually written anything that's required new material from me, I have to write everything in multiple contingencies since all of your stuff is opaque drivel that looks like it could well mean two or three different things. I feel like I have to keep providing a different response for each of the things it looks like you might be trying to say (and sometimes instead I just opt for pointing how ridiculous this stuff looks).

Basically, you're quoting my posts for virtually no reason since you mostly don't respond to the content, and then use it as a white board to write pretentious nonsense. I think that will be sufficiently apparent to any discerning individual, and I see no reason to carry on here.

Ah, there's the meta-synopsis 'out' I was expecting, with the ol 'everyone else that is reading and clearly giving a shit should well be aware of my validation' chestnut that Coriolis likes to drop, as though the left-wing hivemind community of outliers here is any kind of intellectual standard judging your performance. Here, I'll play too, for the sake of fairness:

Look, you are desperately trying to defend the remark I initially targeted you for by opening rabbit holes left and right, when the plain fact of the matter is that there is not only fairness on the most fundamental levels of life (physics/natural laws), but there can also be fairness on any number of other higher-stacked systems as well. It really is that simple. You've attempted some circular logic that the only system you think is meaningful is the only system with meaning, but without an accurate understanding of how systems stack, and how meaning arises from meaninglessness through recursion and self reference, it fell kind of flat on more insightful ears. When it became apparent that I was sticking to the same point that I opened up with, impervious to getting distracted or bogged down on your many irrelevant and uninformed asides, you decided to try to save as much face as possible by supplying a cute ad-hominem implied meta-synopsis of my style of debate as one final attempt at a smokescreen before ducking out while nixon-waving to your even less informed fans.

 

[The Cat]

 

[truthandreality]

Life isn't fair because that's just the way it is. There's no rhyme or reason. I've been lurking and I see the way those members insulted you on here and the mods did nothing about those members yet they banned you for sticking up for yourself. Just don't come to places where you know toxic people who will get away with stuff will be. It's not worth the hassle stooping to their levels.

 

[Beorn]

 

[The Cat]

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Bleep blorp

I've already decided there wasn't a point in continuing that conversation, but it did occur to me that there is another obvious point that I really should have made sooner. Look at what the OP is saying (regardless of what you think of the OP as a person)

We have a kid in North Korea who just made a stupid prank who is now in a coma for it.
Meanwhile, nothing happens to the left wing media people who keep publishing their hate-mongering bogus stories about the president.
I thought slander was a crime but I guess not.

Nothing happens to the appropriate people while people who do far worse things get a slap on the wrist.

Same with this girl that I know. I had this ex friend for nearly 20 years and everyone thinks she's awesome meanwhile they don't know her like I do and she's the shittiest person ever and they still praise and worship her. She's cheated on all her boyfriends, went after her friend's crushes and she gets to be the one to be engaged. I don't get it.

Do the appropriate people ever get punished? Doesn't seem like it.

It's exceedingly obvious that this person means fairness in the sense that I meant it, and not in the frivolous, analytic way you mean it. And from what has been gathered about that poster, I'm betting they aren't generally the kind of person you'd call an "equal outcomes" person in terms of ideology or political platforms.

 

[entropie]

I'm not sure "fairness" is a good thing. Many great people were shaped by the challenges they faced and it's the "unfairness" of their situation that motivates them to succeed.

And when do you emerge?

 

[Tellenbach]

And when do you emerge?

My problem is a complete lack of ambition. I'm happy just reading books and eating ramen noodles. Perhaps a lack of unfairness had something to do with that; I don't know. Maybe if I were raised in Detroit, I'd have a bigger chip on my shoulder and be more motivated.