[PAX] Fairness

[brite]

One example, is when weak individuals band together to attack one strong individual. For example, smaller birds can deter a large bird by a group attack.

Labor unions exemplify the weak pressuring the strong.

If the weak can pressure the strong, then who's the strong?

I suppose I originally said 'maybe' because I am disconcerted that fairness becomes a division between 'weak' and 'strong'. And that fairness would be the weak pressuring the strong such as in the example you have given. Does fairness automatically equate to a simple division between weakness and strength?

It reminds me of an often used reason that men are better than women because they are stronger/bigger. I want to reply, "Well, in that case, I'll take an elephant on the land, an albatross in the sky and a blue whale in the sea?" Where does physical strength come into it? And how much of 'strength' or 'weakness' is physical strength/size?

Wolves need to work together to bring down large prey, but would you call wolves weak simply because they are smaller than their prey and need to work together? Martial arts show that what one considers 'strength' can be used against one and actually be 'weakness'. And if strength were simply numbers, than all wars would have been won by the army with the most members.

All members of labor unions are weak? Which are the varieties of people that they pressure? What makes those people 'strong'? A labour union organising a strike which can bring production or a country to a stop is still considered 'weak'? Why?

What examples in nature are there of fairness based upon weakness and strength?
Why would fairness be based upon weakness and strength?

 

[brite]

Also, people can be different and equal i.e ((3+1) = (2+2)), to seperate identities, but equal.

In a mathamatical equation of numbers, certainly.
In the real world of people, how do inbuilt differences translate to equality?

 

[GracieRuth]

Clearly, I do not agree that life is really a game of extortion.

I don't think fairness is the same as equality. For example, there is a story Jesus tells which offends me because I consider it unfair. A man hires a bunch of workers at the beginning of the day, agreeing to pay them a set wage for the day. Then in the late afternoon he hires a bunch more so the job will be finished. At the end of the day, he pays everyone an EQUAL wage. The early group are offended at this lack of fairness, and so am I.

 

[willow]

Clearly, I do not agree that life is really a game of extortion.

I don't think fairness is the same as equality. For example, there is a story Jesus tells which offends me because I consider it unfair. A man hires a bunch of workers at the beginning of the day, agreeing to pay them a set wage for the day. Then in the late afternoon he hires a bunch more so the job will be finished. At the end of the day, he pays everyone an EQUAL wage. The early group are offended at this lack of fairness, and so am I.

The parable is told in Matthew 20:1-16

The parable is told not to explain how things are in the world but how things are in the Kingdom of heaven (Kingdom of God) (Matthew 20:1).

The householder represents God and the workers represent people who have taken the offer of salvation, receiving eternal life. Some people would have done more good works than others but they all receive eternal life. They don't receive an extended life proportional to their works. Therefore, the people don't earn their salvation, they receive it according to God's grace. God decided to give eternal life to those who sought salvation through his Son, regardless of how good they are. He treats them as equals because they all accepted his offer. The reward is for accepting the offer not for the work. He decides what is fair because he is God. It's his prerogative. Matthew 20:13-16

 

[GracieRuth]

Yes, the parable nature of the story is obvious. However, it doesn't change my objection. If the story itself is basically unfair, what Jesus is teaching is that the afterlife will be unfair, that G-d himself is unfair (as is his perogative). Am I the only one that sees that?

 

[barbad0s]

Clearly, I do not agree that life is really a game of extortion.

I don't think fairness is the same as equality. For example, there is a story Jesus tells which offends me because I consider it unfair. A man hires a bunch of workers at the beginning of the day, agreeing to pay them a set wage for the day. Then in the late afternoon he hires a bunch more so the job will be finished. At the end of the day, he pays everyone an EQUAL wage. The early group are offended at this lack of fairness, and so am I.

How does this story support your point?

 

[GracieRuth]

How does this story support your point?

The story illustrates an instance of equality (equal pay) that is unfair (is not perportional to the time the laborers spent in the field.)

 

[barbad0s]

@GracieRuth , in this case, the perceived unfairness is a result of the inequality that the workers were treated with.

Do you have an example in which a situation is equal but unfair, or inequal but fair? I think that would better illustrate your case.

 

[willow]

Yes, the parable nature of the story is obvious. However, it doesn't change my objection. If the story itself is basically unfair, what Jesus is teaching is that the afterlife will be unfair, that G-d himself is unfair (as is his perogative). Am I the only one that sees that?

To understand the parable one has to take into account the entire context in which the parable is told.

There are two covenants (contracts between God and man.) In the first covenant, man obeys God. Disobedience of God (sin) results in death, regardless of how minor/major the sin is in human eyes. In God's eyes all sin is worthy of death. Since, all humans sin, all humans deserve death. From a human perspective, this is unfair because we think our sins are minor compared to others. However, God in his perfection cannot tolerate sin at all. God decides what is fair.

In the second covenant, which the parable demonstrates, the contract is that if a human being believes in the Son of God then he receives eternal life (a pardon from death.) Those are the terms of the contract. The human can choose to accept it or not. Each worker was told the terms of the contract and they accepted so they cannot turn and say it's unfair.

The work that a saved person does for God is not done for his keep. It is done out of obedience to glorify God. Since all work that people do on behalf of God falls short, because we all sin, the payment we actually deserve is death. Instead, God in his grace offers us eternal life, which none of us, except the Son of God who lived a perfect life deserves. Therefore, God is being generous. We are not his equals to be negotiating with him the terms of the covenant.

Let me go a little further and say that I personally do not see the parable as unfair. If I apply for a position, it is my choice to accept, or not, the salary offered in the contract. If I am not pleased with the offer I do not accept, negotiate or look elsewhere. However, if I do accept the contract then I am bound by the terms of the contract until it expires. I accept the salary even if I find, after signing the contract, that others are earning more elsewhere for a similar position. Now, in the case of the parable if the agreement is eternal life can you expect even more or is it that the others should be paid less although that is the agreement?

Still to clear up another point that may cause confusion. In some societies, day labourers are paid for a day's work not hourly. Therefore, if the work only lasts for a portion of the day they still are paid for the entire day. The reasoning behind this is that these are very lowly workers. To insist that they are paid strictly by the hour would be cruel because that may not even cover their costs in travelling to the job. I do not know if that's how things were done in the times of Jesus.

 

[Rasmus]

[MENTION=1669]Rite[/MENTION] I have spent roughly over twenty hours reading and researching in response to these questions so the first thing I’d like to say, “what a pain in the ass this has been!” The second thing I’d like to say is, “thank you for indirectly sparking an educational journey!” :nerd:

First, my opinion is though Rawls and other political philosophers have some wonderful ideas they often seem to fail to take into account disabled people, mentally ill people and, to some extent, unborn people which inevitably pushes my heart and mind elsewhere due to the convictions I hold toward such people.



How do we define "fairness" for greater social justice for the modern world today?

Defining fairness can be very difficult in and of itself but deciding what is fair in a society/world where every person brings something different to the table seems close to impossible. I guess a good starting point for someone who wants to promote fairness for all humans would be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ <-- 30 rights worth reading.

As for me, fairness is what a person deserves but if the world can’t come to an agreement about the value of a person or what is right and wrong than fairness will always be just another word people throw around when they think something wrong has or is happening.



What are the unique characteristics of today's world which make it difficult to determine what is or isn't fair?

Unique characteristics? We are divided by race, religion, politics, ethics, cultures, traditions, customs, philosophies, languages, thousands of miles of earth, sea, and sky etc. Since “fair” is determined by the value of something it does not translate well from one society to another because we all place varying degrees of value on different things.



How do we approach social justice considering the unique circumstances of the societies in which we live in order to increase chances of greater fairness in our political, social, personal, religious, etc, institutions?


I hate to sound clich

 

[brite]

Well, the number weren't to prove my idea, but to illustrate it, of course, in real life it far more complex than a basic sums, again, with the same simplicity for the sake of argument, a more realistic example could be to do with human traits, agent A could be humorous, but lacks confidence = agent B is confident, but lacks humor, again on grand scale the the complexity can be extended to finance, appearance, as well other less quantifiable internal qualities. I don't mean everyone is exactly equal, digital scales, but both agents have something equally valuable to contribute to each other, although different. In other words, i think there is something different, good in everyone.

Thanks for responding. I liked your equation. It illustrated simply a good point. I'd agree that no everyone is equal and that everyone is different, so I would propose that inequality is inbuilt.
I like your progression to value. Raw materials have been valued extremely differently yet there basic composition remained unchanged. I would propose that value isn't inbuilt and is based on perception or subjective value.