Fair or Equal?

[SabahTheLoner]

Do you want to be treated fairly or equally?

Equal treatment means everyone gets a portion of the overall share (in money, treatment, apples, water, etc). Fair treatment is when everyone gets a portion of that share per a ranking.

Let's use Bob, Joe and Kim for examples using a simple share of money. Bob has $40 in reserves and owes $50. Joe has $10 in reserves and owes $70. Kim has $80 in reserves and owes $10. All participants come from a similar class and social background, and are seeking financial aid for their debt. Everyone wants to pay off the amount they owe. No one is giving up money to benefit the others, all people need the reserve money intact or increased. With this in mind, we distribute $150 between the three people.

An equal distribution would be each person gets $50, the share divided by the number of people. Kim can pay off his debt without the extra money. Bob pays off his debt and has no effect on his reserves. Joe needs to tap into his reserve and ends up with $10 of debt. Ironically, this makes the situation's outcome unequal.

A fair distribution is based off what each person owes. Joe needs at least $70, Bob $50 and Kim $10. Because Kim has the most money in all, he'll only get $10. Joe and Bob each get an extra $10 because they owe more than they have, so Joe gets $80 in all and Bob gets $60. They each add $10 to their reserves and everyone has payed off their debt without chipping away from their reserves. The situation isn't entirely equal, but everyone achieved their goals.

Which is better of society? Equality or fairness?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Doesn't sound fair to Kim who was responsible enough to not acquire debt.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you want to be treated fairly or equally?

Equal treatment means everyone gets a portion of the overall share (in money, treatment, apples, water, etc). Fair treatment is when everyone gets a portion of that share per a ranking.

Let's use Bob, Joe and Kim for examples using a simple share of money. Bob has $40 in reserves and owes $50. Joe has $10 in reserves and owes $70. Kim has $80 in reserves and owes $10. All participants come from a similar class and social background, and are seeking financial aid for their debt. Everyone wants to pay off the amount they owe. No one is giving up money to benefit the others, all people need the reserve money intact or increased. With this in mind, we distribute $150 between the three people.

An equal distribution would be each person gets $50, the share divided by the number of people. Kim can pay off his debt without the extra money. Bob pays off his debt and has no effect on his reserves. Joe needs to tap into his reserve and ends up with $10 of debt. Ironically, this makes the situation's outcome unequal.

A fair distribution is based off what each person owes. Joe needs at least $70, Bob $50 and Kim $10. Because Kim has the most money in all, he'll only get $10. Joe and Bob each get an extra $10 because they owe more than they have, so Joe gets $80 in all and Bob gets $60. They each add $10 to their reserves and everyone has payed off their debt without chipping away from their reserves. The situation isn't entirely equal, but everyone achieved their goals.

Which is better of society? Equality or fairness?

I'd say fairness trump's equality.

 

[Sunstone]

 

[David1967]

Equality, at least based on your example. Kim was the most responsible and shouldn't have to pay the way for the others who were not.

 

[bobhikes]

Do you want to be treated fairly or equally?

Equal treatment means everyone gets a portion of the overall share (in money, treatment, apples, water, etc). Fair treatment is when everyone gets a portion of that share per a ranking.

Let's use Bob, Joe and Kim for examples using a simple share of money. Bob has $40 in reserves and owes $50. Joe has $10 in reserves and owes $70. Kim has $80 in reserves and owes $10. All participants come from a similar class and social background, and are seeking financial aid for their debt. Everyone wants to pay off the amount they owe. No one is giving up money to benefit the others, all people need the reserve money intact or increased. With this in mind, we distribute $150 between the three people.

An equal distribution would be each person gets $50, the share divided by the number of people. Kim can pay off his debt without the extra money. Bob pays off his debt and has no effect on his reserves. Joe needs to tap into his reserve and ends up with $10 of debt. Ironically, this makes the situation's outcome unequal.

A fair distribution is based off what each person owes. Joe needs at least $70, Bob $50 and Kim $10. Because Kim has the most money in all, he'll only get $10. Joe and Bob each get an extra $10 because they owe more than they have, so Joe gets $80 in all and Bob gets $60. They each add $10 to their reserves and everyone has payed off their debt without chipping away from their reserves. The situation isn't entirely equal, but everyone achieved their goals.

Which is better of society? Equality or fairness?

Money is not a quality of equality or fairness only a gauge of it; thereby, money will never solve the problem of equality and fairness. Everyone should want to be treated fairly and in most circumstances that means equally.

 

[Valjean]

Some see society as a family, with everyone supporting each other and those too old, young or disabled to contribute supported by the rest. This, I think, is the "family values" the Republicans speak of.

Others see society as competing individuals and coalitions, and see it as fair and proper that those who cannot compete effectively should be left by the wayside, as undeserving. They see it as unfair that money you earned should go to benefit others.

Social vs anti-social.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you want to be treated fairly or equally?

Equal treatment means everyone gets a portion of the overall share (in money, treatment, apples, water, etc). Fair treatment is when everyone gets a portion of that share per a ranking.

Let's use Bob, Joe and Kim for examples using a simple share of money. Bob has $40 in reserves and owes $50. Joe has $10 in reserves and owes $70. Kim has $80 in reserves and owes $10. All participants come from a similar class and social background, and are seeking financial aid for their debt. Everyone wants to pay off the amount they owe. No one is giving up money to benefit the others, all people need the reserve money intact or increased. With this in mind, we distribute $150 between the three people.

An equal distribution would be each person gets $50, the share divided by the number of people. Kim can pay off his debt without the extra money. Bob pays off his debt and has no effect on his reserves. Joe needs to tap into his reserve and ends up with $10 of debt. Ironically, this makes the situation's outcome unequal.

A fair distribution is based off what each person owes. Joe needs at least $70, Bob $50 and Kim $10. Because Kim has the most money in all, he'll only get $10. Joe and Bob each get an extra $10 because they owe more than they have, so Joe gets $80 in all and Bob gets $60. They each add $10 to their reserves and everyone has payed off their debt without chipping away from their reserves. The situation isn't entirely equal, but everyone achieved their goals.

Which is better of society? Equality or fairness?

Seems to me that a *fair* solution is to have Bob and Joe work for KIm. If Bob works for a while and gets $10 from Kim, then his debts are paid off after using the reserves. If Joe works a bit more and gets $60 from Kim, then his debts are paid off after using his reserves. Finally, Kim can pay off her debts with the last of the $10 and everyone is 'equal'.

Now, forget about distributing the $150. Everyone's debts will be paid off, Kim will have had some work done for her, and everyone will have deserved their endpoint.

 

[Nakosis]

In your scenario, fairness. In reality there's nothing to guarantee the distribution of money will solve problems. Joe at least seems to have problems handling money. Giving Joe more money isn't going to automatically make Joe be more responsible with his finances.

If you help Joe this time why not the next? Then Joe never has to worry about becoming more financially responsible because he knows being less responsible gets him a larger share of the distribution.

 

[Sunstone]

Some see society as a family, with everyone supporting each other and those too old, young or disabled to contribute supported by the rest. This, I think, is the "family values" the Republicans speak of.

Others see society as competing individuals and coalitions, and see it as fair and proper that those who cannot compete effectively should be left by the wayside, as undeserving. They see it as unfair that money you earned should go to benefit others.

Social vs anti-social.

Human survival has depended for millions of years on our being a social species. Myths aside, humans don't fare very well alone.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

In your scenario, fairness. In reality there's nothing to guarantee the distribution of money will solve problems. Joe at least seems to have problems handling money. Giving Joe more money isn't going to automatically make Joe be more responsible with his finances.

If you help Joe this time why not the next? Then Joe never has to worry about becoming more financially responsible because he knows being less responsible gets him a larger share of the distribution.

That is a good point. That's one of the problems with helping one person in real life; others will expect a little boost too, and then you get parasites in the system. Easy answers aren't always the best answers.

 

[Nakosis]

That is a good point. That's one of the problems with helping one person in real life; others will expect a little boost too, and then you get parasites in the system. Easy answers aren't always the best answers.

Kind of the problem I see with government in general. The assumption that spending more money is a way to solve problems.

 

[Silverscale derg]

Do you want to be treated fairly or equally?

Equal treatment means everyone gets a portion of the overall share (in money, treatment, apples, water, etc). Fair treatment is when everyone gets a portion of that share per a ranking.

Let's use Bob, Joe and Kim for examples using a simple share of money. Bob has $40 in reserves and owes $50. Joe has $10 in reserves and owes $70. Kim has $80 in reserves and owes $10. All participants come from a similar class and social background, and are seeking financial aid for their debt. Everyone wants to pay off the amount they owe. No one is giving up money to benefit the others, all people need the reserve money intact or increased. With this in mind, we distribute $150 between the three people.

An equal distribution would be each person gets $50, the share divided by the number of people. Kim can pay off his debt without the extra money. Bob pays off his debt and has no effect on his reserves. Joe needs to tap into his reserve and ends up with $10 of debt. Ironically, this makes the situation's outcome unequal.

A fair distribution is based off what each person owes. Joe needs at least $70, Bob $50 and Kim $10. Because Kim has the most money in all, he'll only get $10. Joe and Bob each get an extra $10 because they owe more than they have, so Joe gets $80 in all and Bob gets $60. They each add $10 to their reserves and everyone has payed off their debt without chipping away from their reserves. The situation isn't entirely equal, but everyone achieved their goals.

Which is better of society? Equality or fairness?

I do not follow on such a concept of fair an equal although I want both in the way of how we're treated. Predatory animals are treated like target practice so prey can overpopulate and humans still have targets to shoot. Lizards have been used as live bait too which is cruel. My stance is if you put what you do in the terms of humans. If you say brown anoles are a different species to green anoles, in the term of humans it would be like segregation, if you put hunting for "population control" in terms of humans, humans wouldn't want that, neither do non human animals. Being trapped in a snare, humans wouldn't like it, being used as live bait...humans still wouldn't like it so why treat another species differently

 

[sayak83]

Do you want to be treated fairly or equally?

Equal treatment means everyone gets a portion of the overall share (in money, treatment, apples, water, etc). Fair treatment is when everyone gets a portion of that share per a ranking.

Let's use Bob, Joe and Kim for examples using a simple share of money. Bob has $40 in reserves and owes $50. Joe has $10 in reserves and owes $70. Kim has $80 in reserves and owes $10. All participants come from a similar class and social background, and are seeking financial aid for their debt. Everyone wants to pay off the amount they owe. No one is giving up money to benefit the others, all people need the reserve money intact or increased. With this in mind, we distribute $150 between the three people.

An equal distribution would be each person gets $50, the share divided by the number of people. Kim can pay off his debt without the extra money. Bob pays off his debt and has no effect on his reserves. Joe needs to tap into his reserve and ends up with $10 of debt. Ironically, this makes the situation's outcome unequal.

A fair distribution is based off what each person owes. Joe needs at least $70, Bob $50 and Kim $10. Because Kim has the most money in all, he'll only get $10. Joe and Bob each get an extra $10 because they owe more than they have, so Joe gets $80 in all and Bob gets $60. They each add $10 to their reserves and everyone has payed off their debt without chipping away from their reserves. The situation isn't entirely equal, but everyone achieved their goals.

Which is better of society? Equality or fairness?

Is this a charity or debt loan that seeks future returns for those who are giving the money?