Should life really be unfair?

[Renegade]

An adherent on the “right” is prone to demand intervention by children’s aid when a mother, immersed in poverty, is having difficulties providing for her child; while someone on the “left” would argue that the state should intervene through better welfare benefits. Both recognize that something unfair is occurring (a child is suffering) and both demand that the state intervene, the only difference is how such intervention should proceed.

How then do you classify those who don't believe there should be any intervention?

[bush_cheney2004]

for you and Jennie...it is a reference to the fact that the left is supportive of abortions of convenience...or more appropriately the termination of pregnancies of inconvenience.

Thank you....I'm glad somebody got it. Abortions are "unfair" from the 'git go!

[Visionseeker]

How then do you classify those who don't believe there should be any intervention?

Possible libertarian tendencies.

[geoffrey]

Possible libertarian tendencies.

Definitely the way to go.

I have a hard time having sympathy for many people. There are a few cases out there, but not many. Serious physical or mental disabilities can certainly limit one's potential, but for the average person, they can pick and choose exactly what they want out of life, as long as they are willing to do something for it.

I was born into a rather well-off family, sure, so I never went hungry or anything like that. I did go to public school though. I moved out at 18, paid for my university and all living expenses by myself... managed to sock money away somehow while doing it. If I can do it, someone that's way more interested in life than in work and school, then anyone can.

The born rich idea is invalid. Anyone can get a degree (or become a tradesperson, ect.) if they want to. It's all about ambition. If you have none, you fail. If you have lots, you'll succeed.

It's all personal choice and responsibility.

[Visionseeker]

Definitely the way to go.

I have a hard time having sympathy for many people. There are a few cases out there, but not many. Serious physical or mental disabilities can certainly limit one's potential, but for the average person, they can pick and choose exactly what they want out of life, as long as they are willing to do something for it.

I was born into a rather well-off family, sure, so I never went hungry or anything like that. I did go to public school though. I moved out at 18, paid for my university and all living expenses by myself... managed to sock money away somehow while doing it. If I can do it, someone that's way more interested in life than in work and school, then anyone can.

The born rich idea is invalid. Anyone can get a degree (or become a tradesperson, ect.) if they want to. It's all about ambition. If you have none, you fail. If you have lots, you'll succeed.

It's all personal choice and responsibility.

Libertarianism is often simplified as, as you say “personal choice and responsibility”, but in reality libertarianism is the philosophy of the self-absorb hermit. A true libertarian rejects intervention in any form, including the idea of rendering aid to a neighbour or friend. For the true libertarian holds that “that’s your problem, not mine.” Libertarians, and not conservatives, are the advocates of social Darwinism.

Those who exhibit libertarian tendencies are not really libertarians. They are individuals who almost uniformly come from comfortable-to-affluent material backgrounds and possess “right-wing” sympathies born from a predisposition to resist change. But their loyalty to the “conservative” playbook is tenuous in that the pseudo-libertarian tend to acquiesce to progressive initiatives if they consider such outcomes as inevitable (i.e. gay marriage).

Those with libertarian tendencies are apt to be disproportionately represented in the group of undecided in political polls. In the US, they call them independent voters.

[Visionseeker]

Thank you....I'm glad somebody got it. Abortions are "unfair" from the 'git go!

Yes, if only men could start having them, that would be more fair wouldn't it?

Edited September 14, 2007 by Visionseeker

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, if only men could start having them, that would be more fair wouldn't it?

They already do....though I'd venture that more females are aborted than males. Unfairness upon unfairness......

[geoffrey]

A true libertarian rejects intervention in any form, including the idea of rendering aid to a neighbour or friend. For the true libertarian holds that “that’s your problem, not mine.” Libertarians, and not conservatives, are the advocates of social Darwinism.

That's not true at all. Libertarians, such as myself, have no issue with people assisting their neighbours or friends or what not. They are against the State coercively taking our money and giving it to someone else. My freedom of choice allows me to do whatever I wish with my funds, whether that is buy a bigger car or give my neighbour some food.

Those who exhibit libertarian tendencies are not really libertarians. They are individuals who almost uniformly come from comfortable-to-affluent material backgrounds and possess “right-wing” sympathies born from a predisposition to resist change. But their loyalty to the “conservative” playbook is tenuous in that the pseudo-libertarian tend to acquiesce to progressive initiatives if they consider such outcomes as inevitable (i.e. gay marriage).

Those with libertarian tendencies are apt to be disproportionately represented in the group of undecided in political polls. In the US, they call them independent voters.

I disagree with much of your charectisation. I do agree that most of us do have right-wing tendencies, at least most start out that way. Ideally though, a rational person that believes that individual liberty precedes all else will eventually be led to libertarianism. It is the most rational political ideology in that it's not hypocritical of itself.

I also disagree that we as a whole fundamentally reject social conservatism just because we realise it's inevitable. I truly dismiss all of the State's influence in personal affairs. It's not libertarian to agree with SSM. It is libertarian to dismiss the government from marriage all together, and allow whatever arrangement of consenting individuals to do whatever they wish and call it whatever they wish. That's always been my viewpoint. Don't legalise gay marriage. Just get the government right out of it. Just an example.

I do agree with the independant voters... in Canada we are often called that too, libertarians are constantly torn between the Liberals and the Conservatives as a compromise vote... do we go with economic liberalism or social liberalism.

[bush_cheney2004]

...It is libertarian to dismiss the government from marriage all together, and allow whatever arrangement of consenting individuals to do whatever they wish and call it whatever they wish. That's always been my viewpoint. Don't legalise gay marriage. Just get the government right out of it. Just an example.

Yes....this is a good example of the Libertarian view. Government will say that it has an interest in regulating marriage contracts, but it strikes at the root of Libertarian ideology and the coercive power of government ostensibly sanctioned for the "common good".

[Renegade]

Libertarianism is often simplified as, as you say “personal choice and responsibility”, but in reality libertarianism is the philosophy of the self-absorb hermit. A true libertarian rejects intervention in any form, including the idea of rendering aid to a neighbour or friend. For the true libertarian holds that “that’s your problem, not mine.” Libertarians, and not conservatives, are the advocates of social Darwinism.

Your bias shows through. Libertarianism is not at all the philosophy of the self-absorbed hermit. Libertarianism is only necessary as a philosophy because we live in close proimity and governs the obligations of our interactions.

While a libertarian may personally have a standard of fairness, he expects that society doesn't attempt to impose his or its standard of "fairness" on anyone.

[myata]

Those who exhibit libertarian tendencies are not really libertarians. They are individuals who almost uniformly come from comfortable-to-affluent material backgrounds and possess “right-wing” sympathies born from a predisposition to resist change. But their loyalty to the “conservative” playbook is tenuous in that the pseudo-libertarian tend to acquiesce to progressive initiatives if they consider such outcomes as inevitable (i.e. gay marriage).

So to round it up in your own words, those who tend to believe in "personal choice and responsibility" do somehow achieve "comfortable-to-affluent" background? And, to take to the other extreme, those who don't, may find themselves struggling, in the material aspect at least? Isn't it that obvious link between the effort and result?

Is it "fair" to be able to obtain something freely, for which someone else has to work hard, day after day?

And if that something (material wealth to be exact) were to become available freely to everybody, would they work hard, day after day, to create it?

Really, there's only two logical choices: 1) wealth is available in endless amounts without any effort (i.e. manna falling from the sky); or 2) someone has to work to create it.

While "left wing" is still working on #1, we're stuck with the alternative. It also has two main flavours: voluntary work for incentive (aka "capitalism"): no work, little wealth; or involuntary work under duress (slavery, communism). Pick your choice.

Don't take me that there should be no place for compassion and assistance in our society. It's just that these must be and are voluntary, based on consent of those who create wealth to share it with less fortunate. The alternative would be slavery, whether traditional or "left wing" communism.

Edited September 14, 2007 by myata

[Higgly]

I'd like to thank you all for joining this thread.

I'd like, in particular, to thank Visionseeker who wrote "Life is unfair. For if it were fair, humanity would have no need for a system of justice, children’s aid societies would be without clients, and a military would be an abomination. "

In fact we do all sorts of things to make life more fair. We practise medicine. We practise law (well OK, it has sort of strayed from the true path, but I personally believe there is hope). We pass laws and hire people to enforce them. We democratically elect our government...

RB wrote "If life was fair, we'd all be good, rich, bald, fat and right."

Well, maybe, but... "Hey now baby. Get into my big black car." .. Jack Bruce and Peter Brown. From the album "Wheels of Fire" by Cream (Eric Clapton, Jack Bruce, Ginger Baker); Polydor Records. Women who are able to compete equally in a free labour marketplace don't have to do that anymore. Isn't that fair?

What exactly does fairness mean" Does it mean we all have humungous flat screen TVs, luxurious cars, and chalets at Whistler? Or does it mean something else?

Pray tell, you sages of MapleLeafWeb. What exactly does "fair" mean?

I would like to dedicate this thread to Anita Roddick, the founder of the Body Shop, he inventor of "Fair Trade", who died this past week. You go, grrrrl.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Higgly

[Guest American Woman]

I have a hard time having sympathy for many people. There are a few cases out there, but not many. Serious physical or mental disabilities can certainly limit one's potential, but for the average person, they can pick and choose exactly what they want out of life, as long as they are willing to do something for it.

I was born into a rather well-off family, sure, so I never went hungry or anything like that. I did go to public school though. I moved out at 18, paid for my university and all living expenses by myself... managed to sock money away somehow while doing it. If I can do it, someone that's way more interested in life than in work and school, then anyone can.

The born rich idea is invalid. Anyone can get a degree (or become a tradesperson, ect.) if they want to. It's all about ambition. If you have none, you fail. If you have lots, you'll succeed.

It's all personal choice and responsibility.

The "average" person would likely fall into the group that life was "fair" to. It's the "not average" people that don't have the same opportunity to succeed; where "it's all about personal choice and responsibility" doesn't apply.

You may not realize it, but your "rather well off family" provided you with the basic necessities of life, and most likely went a long way in regards to giving you the attitude that you could succeed; in other words, confidence. The feeling that you were someone; someone who was capable of doing whatever you set your mind to. It also gave you a safety net should you have failed. It's easier to go out in the world knowing that. I'd also guess lending institutions would be more willing to give you a loan than someone from the opposite background.

As for the "public school" you attended-- public schools vary from great schools with good teachers, plenty of money, and lots of extracurricular activites to those in the ghetto, those who can't even get certified teachers to teach. Those where fear /violence/drugs is a way of life.

To say it's all personal choice and responsibilty is not true at all. If it were that simple, our backgrounds and opportunities as children would be meaningless; good parenting wouldn't be a necessity if everyone could just easily overcome the bad.

I've seen kids with so much intelligence/potential that my heart aches for, because I would bet they will end up in trouble with the law by the time they are 16, and it's simply because of the circumstances of their birth.

Universities that have Affirmative Action programs recognize that life isn't fair, and they strive to make it a bit more fair with their policies.

[Higgly]

Nicely said.

[Renegade]

What exactly does fairness mean" Does it mean we all have humungous flat screen TVs, luxurious cars, and chalets at Whistler? Or does it mean something else?

Pray tell, you sages of MapleLeafWeb. What exactly does "fair" mean?

You cannot have a universal definition of a quality which is only determined subjectively. "Fairness" is in the eye of the beholder as much as "beauty" is.

[Melanie_]

Johnny Cash, Cream, and now.... Trooper weighs in.

Raise a little Hell, raise a little Hell, raise a little Hell

If you don't like

What you got

Why don't you change it

If your world is all screwed up

Rearrange it

Raise a little Hell ...

If you don't like what you see

Why don't you fight it

If you know there's something wrong

Why don't you right it

Raise a little Hell ...

In the end it comes down to your thinking

And there's really nobody to blame

When it feels like your ship is sinking

And you're too tired to play the game

Nobody's going to help you

You've just got to stand up alone

And dig in your heels

And see how it feels

To raise a little Hell of your own

Raise a little Hell ...

If you don't like

What you got

Why don't you change it

If your world is all screwed up

Rearrange it

Raise a little Hell ...

I think the original question, should life be unfair, is unrealistic. It is unfair, and that isn't likely to change, for all the reasons others have said so far on this thread. A more answerable question is, when faced with inequities, what qualities allow some people to overcome them, and others to be held back? Why are some able to "Raise a Little Hell"? I like Kimmy's view on competent parenting, but I'm not sure that accounts for all the resiliency we see in people. Temperament plays a part, and so does the balance of life experience a person has - if they haven't had a lot of success in making change, they are less likely to keep trying.

[myata]

You cannot have a universal definition of a quality which is only determined subjectively. "Fairness" is in the eye of the beholder as much as "beauty" is.

Couldn't be said any better. As long as there're individuals, there will be conflict - of desires, actions, ideas, etc. That's be nature of this world - where I'm wrong, you may be right, thus helping the survival of the species. Even when we delegate an issue to somebody else for a judgement, it's not because it's guaranteed infallible and absolute fairness. No, it's only a convention, compromise we're willing to accept to avoid potentially worse outcome.

So, no, life will never be "fair" as long as there's at least one individual who believes otherwise.

Of course, there's also a possibility that some unquestionable supreme authority will decide on the fairness of all things, once and for all. Unfortunately, in the real examples where such authorities have existed, they almost invariably demonstrated far more atrociuos behaviour than we see around us in our imperfect adversarial and error prone system.

[Higgly]

Johnny Cash, Cream, and now.... Trooper weighs in.

I think the original question, should life be unfair, is unrealistic. It is unfair, and that isn't likely to change, for all the reasons others have said so far on this thread. A more answerable question is, when faced with inequities, what qualities allow some people to overcome them, and others to be held back? Why are some able to "Raise a Little Hell"? I like Kimmy's view on competent parenting, but I'm not sure that accounts for all the resiliency we see in people. Temperament plays a part, and so does the balance of life experience a person has - if they haven't had a lot of success in making change, they are less likely to keep trying.

Raise a little hell? We can all raise a little hell. There are people raising a little hell all over the place. Most of them show up on CP24.

If you are an Iraqi family and some 18 year-old from Lubbock bashes your door in, is that 'Raising a Little Hell?'

The question is not whether life is unfair, but whether life should be unfair.

[Guest American Woman]

The question is not whether life is unfair, but whether life should be unfair.

Or maybe put another way-- does life have to be unfair?

Obviously there are bad things that happen that no one can do anything about, but seems to me the world would be a pretty decent place for most if only everyone cared enough to do what they could to help those less fortunate. And the thing is, we would all benefit from it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Life should never be fair, however, death is very fair.

[Renegade]

Or maybe put another way-- does life have to be unfair?

To put it bluntly, yes it does. You can't eliminate misfortune, you can only distribute it around. To remove the misfortune of one person, you have to, at least to a certain extent, move it to another. Should that be considered "fair"?

[Guest American Woman]

To put it bluntly, yes it does. You can't eliminate misfortune, you can only distribute it around. To remove the misfortune of one person, you have to, at least to a certain extent, move it to another. Should that be considered "fair"?

If a person who has more gives to a person who has less, how is that moving the misfortune to those who have more?

[Renegade]

If a person who has more gives to a person who has less, how is that moving the misfortune to those who have more?

If a preson voluntarily gives then no misfortune isn't redistributed. However, if you forcibly take from a person who has more you are essentially robbing that person.

[Guest American Woman]

If a preson voluntarily gives then no misfortune isn't redistributed. However, if you forcibly take from a person who has more you are essentially robbing that person.

So life doesn't have to be unfair, if only those with more would be compassionate enough to do what they could to help those less fortunate.

[Renegade]

So life doesn't have to be unfair, if only those with more would be compassionate enough to do what they could to help those less fortunate.

Somewhat. There will always be some "unfairness" which cannot be rectified. However I agree that voluntarily compassionate actions can address some "unfairness"