Can Life Be Made Fair?

[Levite]

Again, the fairest we can make things is through making our basic, minimal rights equal for all. Doing that provides the greatest freedom, but also the greatest responsibility. The one overriding necessity is integrity in government and even more importantly, in the people.

Agreed. Basic human rights should be guaranteed. That seems self-evident.

I agree that we must live without regard to whether there's a God or an afterlife or not. It does help, however, to do things you know you're going to look back on during your life (hopefully with pride) all the way up to the end. If you believe in a hereafter, and there turns out to be one, so much the better; it's just that there's no way to know until you get there, which would be part of the test. What choices do we make when no one is watching....and when everyone is. That's free will.

I think one of the primary purposes of religion is to provide a framework and methodology for structuring and generating personal ethics and social justice. So I think it's not so much that we should live "without regard to whether there's a God or an afterlife or not:" it's that our interpretations and understandings of our sacred texts and traditions should be oriented toward effective moral and spiritual lives. If our theologies end up generating hatred, violence, oppression, etc., then they are bad theologies, and better interpretations are needed.

In any case, in Judaism, at least, we are taught that we are not supposed to do right in order to achieve some sort of reward from God. We are supposed to do it because it is right; and because God values justice and compassion, and our pursuit of those ideals pleases Him. That is why such a large amount of what God has taught us and what we are commanded has to do with social justice and personal ethics.

 

[LuisDantas]

Huh?

Fairness must be built. It is a collective attainment.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Agreed. Basic human rights should be guaranteed. That seems self-evident.

Yeah, but I continue to be surprised at the people who don't believe that.

I think one of the primary purposes of religion is to provide a framework and methodology for structuring and generating personal ethics and social justice. So I think it's not so much that we should live "without regard to whether there's a God or an afterlife or not:" it's that our interpretations and understandings of our sacred texts and traditions should be oriented toward effective moral and spiritual lives. If our theologies end up generating hatred, violence, oppression, etc., then they are bad theologies, and better interpretations are needed.

I agree with that last, but religion is the primary entity that screws up our moral code, mainly because they insist on revelation as the source of their authority. Almost all religions have some form of a simple Golden Rule, but end up only paying it lip service and come up with an absurd array of morals, most of which should only be guidelines for individual behavior. One of the worst examples is execution for not abiding by the Commandment not to work on the sabbath. There's even restrictions for what you can do to save someone from drowning on the sabbath. And the modern puritanical interpretation of Genesis as Original Sin is even worse.

In any case, in Judaism, at least, we are taught that we are not supposed to do right in order to achieve some sort of reward from God. We are supposed to do it because it is right; and because God values justice and compassion, and our pursuit of those ideals pleases Him. That is why such a large amount of what God has taught us and what we are commanded has to do with social justice and personal ethics.

Like Original Sin and keeping the sabbath holy. We need to take our moral code and start over with the Golden Rule, which I believe should be stated as, Honoring the equal rights of all to life, liberty, property and self-defense to be from violation through force or fraud. All other behavior is individually determined virtue. Paul wanted to abandon the Law, but he went way to far saying that we don't even need to try to be good, just believing in the salvific death of Jesus was the ONLY thing that was necessary according to him.

Fairness must be built. It is a collective attainment.

I think you're trying to say something without saying it. How do you build fairness, and how do you form the collective that builds it? What is the source of its authority, or is there an authority?

 

[LuisDantas]

I think you're trying to say something without saying it. How do you build fairness, and how do you form the collective that builds it? What is the source of its authority, or is there an authority?

I am being as direct as my abilities allow me, but I suspect I don't acknowledge the concept of fairness that you are using as worth pursuing or even hoping for.

We build fairness by nurturing honesty and respect towards each other. There is no other way, even hypothetically.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If you rely on the law and government, for applying rights and duties The world will remain unfair.

What befalls us in life is largely chance. Society can mitigate the downs and encourage everyone to cooperate to help the unfortunate.
It is all about attitude of mind not coercion.

In recent times selfishness has predominated in social and political thought.
Libertarianism and right wing politics only works to the advantage of the fortunate.
The theory that there is a downward benefit flow associated with the advancement of the wealthy, is without merit in practice. It simply never functions to raise the fortunes of the poor. At best it maintains their level of misfortune.

The fact they society is in constant ebb and flow, maintains the illusion that anyone can prosper by their own efforts.
In reality just as many slide down the snakes as climb the ladders.
The overall structure and proportions of poor and wealthy remain much the same.
The middle class is an illusion, they are simply those temporarily stuck in a central eddy.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Is it naive to ask what makes life "unfair"? I'm being serious.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I am being as direct as my abilities allow me, but I suspect I don't acknowledge the concept of fairness that you are using as worth pursuing or even hoping for.

More obscurity. What concept of fairness DO you acknowledge. I suspect that's what you're talking around.

We build fairness by nurturing honesty and respect towards each other.

No higher goal could we have for society, but that still doesn't build fairness--unless you've redefined it.

If you rely on the law and government, for applying rights and duties The world will remain unfair.

Sort of the point of the threat, is to show that fairness isn't possible, at least that's what I've been saying.

What befalls us in life is largely chance. Society can mitigate the downs and encourage everyone to cooperate to help the unfortunate.

What happens in life is due pretty much to equal amounts of chance, effort, and native skill.

It is all about attitude of mind not coercion.

Now you're being obscure. How is coercion not attitude?

In recent times selfishness has predominated in social and political thought.

They've been there since the dawn of time. Kings, tyrants and oligarchies are nothing but about the selfish acquisition of power; and socialism is just another name for oligarchy. But even they aren't necessarily bad or evil. The principle we need to pursue is enlightened self-interest.

Libertarianism and right wing politics only works to the advantage of the fortunate.

The fortunate are often fortunate due to their own efforts, drive and abilities, which often makes their luck.

The theory that there is a downward benefit flow associated with the advancement of the wealthy, is without merit in practice. It simply never functions to raise the fortunes of the poor. At best it maintains their level of misfortune.

Look at the fortunes of the poor in industrialized nations over the last 200 years. They are much better off. You just don't like it that the wealthy are still higher. Instead of a rising tide lifting all boats (JFK), you'd move the whole operation into the swamp.

The fact they society is in constant ebb and flow, maintains the illusion that anyone can prosper by their own efforts.
In reality just as many slide down the snakes as climb the ladders.
The overall structure and proportions of poor and wealthy remain much the same.

That's true, but they're all elevated. You're just pissed that they still have proportionately more wealth even though some do climb the ladder to the top as well. So, as with all socialists, you'd rather bring the top down to the bottom, because that's "fair"--and it gives the class warfare demagogues the opportunity to exploit the envy.

Is it naive to ask what makes life "unfair"? I'm being serious.

Naive? I don't know, but it is pretty obvious I think.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Naive? I don't know, but it is pretty obvious I think.

It's obvious what makes life unfair you mean? Really? If so I feel sort of foolish having no real idea what it is. Disease? The ability to feel pain? The fact that we die? The ability of other people to be jerks? The idea that we can't really know/understand our purpose or if there is even one?

I'm honestly just guessing. I don't feel that any of the above are "unfair". These are the conditions under which we enter existence. That's really all there is to it.

 

[LuisDantas]

More obscurity. What concept of fairness DO you acknowledge. I suspect that's what you're talking around.

Funny understanding of "obscurity" and "talking around"...

No higher goal could we have for society, but that still doesn't build fairness--unless you've redefined it.

Redefining in relation to what? I am telling you outright what I consider to be a valid concept of fairness: "honesty and respect towards each other."

If you have another understanding, fair enough. But it sure looks childish to attempt to translate that into empty bravado.

 

[Levite]

I agree with that last, but religion is the primary entity that screws up our moral code, mainly because they insist on revelation as the source of their authority.

I disagree that this is a problem per se. It is only a problem when revelation is not ultimate authority but proximate authority, and there is no mechanism for interpreting and applying interpretation according to accepted methodologies and frameworks. In other words, it's mostly a problem for Protestant Christianity. Less for Catholic and Orthodox Christianities, still less for Islam, and least for Judaism, within the Western religions (the non-Western religions often lack reliance on revelation altogether, or approach it utterly differently). Not saying that those religions don't have problems-- they certainly do-- just different problems.

Almost all religions have some form of a simple Golden Rule, but end up only paying it lip service and come up with an absurd array of morals, most of which should only be guidelines for individual behavior.

I think this shows misunderstanding of a lot of religions' structures and methods.

One of the worst examples is execution for not abiding by the Commandment not to work on the sabbath. There's even restrictions for what you can do to save someone from drowning on the sabbath.

Nobody has been executed for working on the Sabbath in millennia. It is, in fact, extraordinarily difficult in Jewish Law to execute someone at all: the burden of proof necessary is crushing, far in excess of what any country in the world demands or has ever demanded. So much so that in the Talmud, they remark that a court which executed someone once in seven years (for anything) was called a "bloody court."

Second of all, it is absolutely untrue that there are restrictions on what one can do to save someone from drowning on the Sabbath. There is a major principle in Jewish Law, pikuach nefesh docheh et hakol, "Saving a life takes precedence over all else." One is not only permitted but required to violate the Sabbath in any way necessary in order to save a life. That is basic Jewish Law.

And the modern puritanical interpretation of Genesis as Original Sin is even worse.

Can't help you there, that's Christian, not Jewish. We don't have Original Sin.

Like Original Sin and keeping the sabbath holy. We need to take our moral code and start over with the Golden Rule, which I believe should be stated as, Honoring the equal rights of all to life, liberty, property and self-defense to be from violation through force or fraud. All other behavior is individually determined virtue.

That's not how cultures and societies work. We need laws, principles, guidelines, and ethical frameworks. And sometimes ritual practice also serves ethical and moral functions: it just may not be readily apparent.

I think you need to study more about non-Christian religions before you condemn "religion" as a whole. Because right now, it sounds like your critique is really oriented specifically to certain kinds of Protestant Christianity.

Paul wanted to abandon the Law, but he went way to far saying that we don't even need to try to be good, just believing in the salvific death of Jesus was the ONLY thing that was necessary according to him.

Yeah, again, that's Christianity. Can't help you there. Jews don't believe in Jesus, and don't care about Paul. But I would presume, having some great, progressive Christian minister friends, that there are ways to read and interpret Christian teachings which do not conform to the critiques you are making.

 

[Nakosis]

Fairness must be built. It is a collective attainment.

I agree, there exists no guarantees of fairness. It has to be worked for, not some expectation that everyone is going to honor.

Problem is in finding enough like minded people.

If I am better off then you, I may have to sacrifice some of my power/control/money to ensure you are treated equally. I don't think that is the norm of human nature. There exists folks willing to take on this role, but there is a lot of opposition from those who have these things and don't want to share.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree, there exists no guarantees of fairness. It has to be worked for, not some expectation that everyone is going to honor.

Problem is in finding enough like minded people.

Indeed. It is a fascinating, often scary challenge. All the more so because it is a direct consequence of our intellectual and social natures, which both need cooperation and have a hard time attaining it.

If I am better off then you, I may have to sacrifice some of my power/control/money to ensure you are treated equally. I don't think that is the norm of human nature. There exists folks willing to take on this role, but there is a lot of opposition from those who have these things and don't want to share.

It all comes down to how aware and accepting of our mutual interdependence and reciprocal duties people are, IMO.

It is rather difficult to develop it without proper social encouragement.

 

[Sir Doom]

It's like learning that no matter "how hard you try", you can't ever negate gravity--though there are some who will always claim that it's possible if we try hard enough. Not it this life.

I can't help but notice you didn't answer my questions. Not that I'm incredibly shocked. They were designed to illustrate your complete lack of ability to say what you are saying (that it's impossible) due to a lack of effort on your part. Your refusal to answer only galvanizes my assumption that you gave up a long time ago. Naturally, so long as people like you exist, fairness is a dream. Thanks for that.

You've achieved it? Do tell.

Yes, I have successfully been fair to everyone. Told.

Judges, not decides. There's a difference.

No, there isn't. You're splitting hairs.

Not so. I recognize that all people should have equal rights even though that doesn't make them born with equal abilities. It's the people who try to legislate fairness (sincerely and otherwise) that trample those equal rights for all into the ground.

It IS so, and your response here says nothing about it. Try again.

So, you descended to quibbling about timing. When your born, how long you live, and the degree of abilities you're born with isn't "fair"; but the fact that we all end up as dust no matter who we are, is. It's just a restatement of the old adage that you can't take it with you.

Ha! Timing... yeah you missed my point. I am not dead. Is that fair or not? Why can't you answer that?

We ALL think about it, but only some of us act on it.

Ugh, why do I even bother? You don't realize how you are acting on your idea of evil RIGHT NOW?

And the fairest you can make things is with equal rights for all. But I suspect that's not what you want at all, but rather to define "fairness" to your advantage.

I'm sure this has something to do with the afterlife. I'm not sure HOW it does... but since that's what you are responding to... it must... right? Or maybe you are stuck with nothing to say again?

I think, I know, you knew the answer to that before you even asked it.

Oblivion would not be more humane than burning in hell forever? I can only believe you're flailing and grasping at straws for a cohesive thought here.

Wow. Read it again, chief. You took it completely backwards.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I can't help but notice you didn't answer my questions. Not that I'm incredibly shocked. They were designed to illustrate your complete lack of ability to say what you are saying (that it's impossible) due to a lack of effort on your part. Your refusal to answer only galvanizes my assumption that you gave up a long time ago. Naturally, so long as people like you exist, fairness is a dream. Thanks for that.

I see you're a professional snark who's only looking for another straw man or red herring, so what's the point, even though I'm sure you understood the inevitable equation of the impetus of social history's damnation of fairness, to the law of gravity. Sorry, I don't speak psychobabble. Have a nice day.