What is fairness?

Remove all ads!

What does it mean to call a situation or circumstance 'fair'? What is 'unfair'? How is it that a four year-old child would know exactly what is 'fair', and yet I am quite unsure?

Dig in folks.

 

It's very hard when you want to give a bulletproof definition of good or right or just. When I was a child, fairness as translated from English was understood in some relation with clarity. As I understood it, acting in the open was fair, trickery was not. That's what you have in fair on unfair games, isn't it? On the other hand, if you talk about rules being fair or not, it gets complicated. However, there's still the notion of hidden advantage - something which is not supposed to be there and someone's trying to pretend it realy isn't there, but we know that it is and it affects the outcome. More meanings appeared as I grew up.

These days, I would connect fairness with equality and justice. Fair rules have to be equal. The even forcibly inflict equality in unequal circumstances sometimes. Just shouldn't interpret it as equal chance of winning. That would be like a roll of the dice. It's not what competing is about, right? Then again, is ever competing with a weaker or stronger opponent fair? If the strength (not necessarily physical) is equal, can you actually win? Is winning on a random chance fun? Fair play still somehow comes down to respecting the rules of engagement. Then, the rules themselves have to be fair also. Guess we're still at the starting point.

Another notion is one connected with rights. I wouldn't really like to talk about rights, but it's still giving to everyone what he has the right to. In some sense. Fairness of judgement would mean acknowledging the good qualities of your enemies, e.g. if you in all fairness admit that yes, your enemy is an honest person. However, respecting a single good or admirable trait in an enemy is just one dimension of it.

Hmm... Respecting... Respect... Maybe that's it? Respecting everyone? It's hard to be unfair to people if you respect them. Then again, if we talk about unfair expectations, we may construe them as disrespect of some sort, but it's not generic disrespect, anyway.

What's left? Unfair advantage, unfair disadvantage... The rules of engagement don't exhaust that. Obeying fair rules of engagement in good faith still won't probably always remove the problem of unfair advantage or disadvantage. At this point, I suppose we're going to point out that "fair" doesn't mean the same to everyone.

Let's take an example. Or a couple. What if a level 10 fighter / level 10 wizard gets to compete with a level 20 fighter? Is it fair if they use the same items? Spells can make up for lack of good items quite well. And the spellcasting one won't really be wearing full plate mail anyway, so it only hurts the level 20 fighter if you forbid armour. If you restrict magic, what with the fighter's skills not being restricted? I'm pretty sure there are ways a level 10 fighter / level 10 wizard can fry a level 20 fighter. It's enough if he manages to cast something mean with will save. Stoneskin is already there for damage reduction. Whatever. But if you remove magic from the competition, you will basically reduce the level 10 fighter / level 10 wizard to the attack bonus of a level 15 fighter and even fewer hit points than that. Not to mention the stat points that went into the now useless Intelligence. On the other hand, this means that just restricting magic wouldn't make it fair for a level 10 fighter and that level 10 fighter / level 10 wizard, right? A magic duel between a level 10 wizard and a level 10 wizard / level 10 fighter might appear closer to fair, but still... what about the HPs? Or what about conjured weapons?

My conclusion is that you can't really make things fair by laying down a couple of simple rules, but even if you delve into it, you'd basically have to make it a random chance to make a competition completely fair from everyone's point of view. Or not even that. You can't allow random chance to decide in a contest of skill, after all.

This is not to say that objective fairness doesn't exist. Thing is, if we want to make things fair in practice, we need to come up with some sort of agreement. And then it's set. So long as everyone's fully informed and free to consent or not, it should be fair.

Oh, but there's also being fair to people. On the one hand, treating others like one would like to be treated himself should solve the problem. Then again, we would generally prefer to be treated better than fair if possible, or perhaps believe in higher standards than just fairness (e.g. we believe it's fair to do this or that, but one should still do more). The basic intuitive measure is probably whether people know what they can expect from us. But is it fair if they don't really have much to say or if they don't know all the details? Let's say we're clear on things and all, but we force them? Or they aren't forced but neither are they informed?

All in all I'd say that fairness encompasses the following:

-equality
-clarity
-adherence to established rules
-free consent to arrangements
-full knowledge about everything that matters

And it's still not all. There must still be some measure of honest, good faith, maybe even empathy and compassion, but we generally try to avoid emotions or feelings when talking about fairness. Perhaps fairness is the rational side of good?

I'm fully aware that I haven't given you an answer. Maybe I've even complicated matters further for you, hehe. But let's hope these divagations help in some way. And I do need sleep.

 

But what about the statement that life isn't fair?

Some people are born rich and some poor. Some are born with extraordinary talents and some with below average abilities.

And Nature. Is Nature fair? Storms that destroy and kill. I'm sure the people involved don't feel it is fair. Sickness.

Since I only have questions and no answers beyond what Chev has posted I think I will stop.

 

How about, 'Fair and just is the best of all possible outcomes for all participants---when the greatest good is forged.'

And, 'Unfair and unjust is when the net good is less than could be possible.'

So...

Eating animals ---> Unjust since it is possible for them to not be eaten and for us to still survive. Greatest good not served.

But what about if our good, as humans with superior capabilities for appreciating what 'good' actually is, surpasses the good of a longer sentient-period for dairy cows. We gain more pleasure than is derived from their lack of suffering. Net good ---> Flame-broiled.

For all of this to work, that is, to be able to judge what makes one 'good' larger than another 'good', you would need some sort of quantization of 'good'. Numbers and such. Maybe a derivative would need to be determined around Christmas time. Think everyone would agree to the same numbers? No...

So really, despite the fact that different people may have similar gauges of fairness, a one true objective 'Fair' does not exist. Objective justice is a pipe-dream. We just create the version of it we like the most. If one suscribes to that particular system, as Chev described, then that participant considers things 'fair'. But many will be left out of that system, as being a system, it does not encompass all that is---instead it just cuts a portion of it out. The 'Fairness' Chev describes may exist in a patent court in Washington, but outside of that rigid abstract rule-structure things are going to be different. There is no single objective 'fairness ruleset' that we can all consult.

So, animals are not going to get a fair deal. They will measure our good differently then we will measure ours, and vice-verse.

I don't know if I've gotten anywhere...

I lost track of what I was trying to prove...sleep time.

 

"Fair" isn't a word I use much, though I was passionate about it when I was a child and teenager. I remember arguing with my parents that it wasn't fair that my one-year-younger-than-me sister got to start riding her bike to school at the same time I did. I should have been allowed to ride my bike when I was her age. They should have rolled back the clock and fixed that.

OTOH, it is a perfectly good, widely used, English word and deserves some reflection on what it means. I think the notion of justice more than equality connects with it.

But I also think it is a concept that applies to human affairs and not to the natural order. It has to do with how human beings order their relationships, public and private.

And once more OTOH, I remember during my brief sojourn in law enforcement receiving a congratulatory note from a very religious friend when I graduated from training in which she enjoined to remember that mercy is greater than justice. As C.S. Lewis's character the Fox observed in his novel Till We Have Faces, in response to Ungit's question, "Are the gods not just?": "Oh, no, child. What would become of us if they were just?"

So for me: not fairness, not justice, but mercy.

 

@LNT:

I'd be careful about saying that and I don't think I would... but it would be awfully hard to nail down the objective. If fairness comes from us humans, it's possible there's no objective standard but some relation of our projections. But if fairness comes from God, the way love or good does, then there is an objective standard. Still doesn't mean we're able to know the essence of it, just maybe the properties... That would mean we could know that something is fair on unfair, perhaps, or some demands of fairness, but we'd be unable (on our own) to describe fairness in whole and exhaust it. Either way, we have to work in some form of concordance with other people. After all, hey, isn't actually fairness about concordance with other people? Maybe that's what it is about? I believe there is objective justice, objective good, objective right, objective equity, but fairness seems to be much about agreements with people - not ruling that there's no objective standard, though.

Edit: Oops, looks like my post hasn't necessarily helped straighten anything up. Maybe it has even complicated things. Oh well.

@revmaf: Yep. Mercy, not justice, is what I hope to get from God.

 

Mercy. Wow. I'm going to have to think on that.

 

Humm, what's fair?

I'd like to chew into this question from the viewpoint of power ratios.

As species we can't be fair towards animals. Fairness supposes equality, if you'd see it as 'not trying to get advantage over the other'.

One could interpret the "golden rule", or as Chev put it 'treating others like one would like to be treated himself' not as treating others as they were equal, but acting towards other people, or beings in a weaker position as you would wish a person in a stronger position to act towards you.

Mercy kicks in. Or, noblesse oblige. "With great power comes great responsibility"

To Chev's example of the duelling F/M and fighter this would mean that both of the opponents evaluate their strengths, and the stronger of the two would limit the use of the spell or item that would give a clear victory over the opponent.

When the power ratios are near equal, things could be considered fair. Without fixing the power ratios in some manner the weaker party would have no chance of victory. So 'fair' doesn't necessitate a stalemate, which would come from making the opponents exactly equal but the option, the possibility for either one of the contestants to win.

 

Reality:

Fairness is a doctrine that those at a disadvantage use to gain advantage over those who they feel unfairly or unjustly hold them in a position of disadvantage.

In most cases real injustice or lack of fairness was created by the claimant's accusation.

 

What is fair is that those who have worked hard to aquire said advantages should be allowed to use them. To demand otherwise in seeking fairness is hypocrisy.

I dislike the concept of 'fairness' simply because it is unreasonable to expect every person to be treated the same. Every person is so different and to try and place them all on level footing would mean the entire population need be treated like the lowest of the whole population. If that is the case where is the incentive to better oneself?

Certainly there are those who use their 'unfair' advantage to impose tyrannical rules and oppress those who do not have said advantage, but the advantage they hold is not the problem, it's the person who holds the advantage. There are many who have great power but use it with compassion and caring to those who are less fortunate, so it doesn't mean that a situation that is unfair is necessarily bad, sometimes it's good and sometimes that which is fair is bad.

A good example is Mugabe's political career based on bringing equality and fairness to Zimbabwe. He would place everyone on equal footing, give everyone the same amount of land, make everyone equal in power and wealth... look what happened. Zimbabwe is now a joke, it can't even feed its own people when it used to export food.

 

I think the definition of fairness depends on the context it is used in and the attitude of the preson using it. Some people use the term "unfair" as simply an excuse when they lose, others because they truly believe it was unfair.

That probably doesn't help much, but it's what I think.