Communists, Don't Fear the Reaper....:D

[Velociryx]

That is because they're not in smoking ruins at all.

Fairness cannot be dictated any more than justice can be dictated.

By definition, he who dictates the fairness, being a fellow human being, will take pains to ensure that the "fairness" doled out is "more fair" to him than to you.

Thus, given the definition OF fairness, it destroys itself.

Again, tell it to King Solomon.

-=Vel=-

[aneeshm]

To Kidicious - please tell me the purpose of a state under your system .

[Spiffor]

Vel:

If I understand Agathon's argument well, he means that "fairness", just like "justice" are highly subjective notions, which vary from individual to individual.

Now, we know that all modern countries have a standardized norm, which is enforced through force (you, Vel, as an American, can't kill somebody or you'll be throw to prison - even if you saw that killing as the right thing to do).
If we are to make a moral principle such as "fairness" or "justice" into a norm enforced by the State, it has to be standardized, just like any other norm.
Hence the legal definition of "fairness" or "justice" has to be precise, has to be unique, and has to be enforced through force for those who will act against the norm.

If it's not standardized, any small-scale deicider and their dog will have a different definition of these principles, and it will be the rule of the arbitrary.

[Velociryx]

Spiffor, I absolutely agree with that, however....

That is not the same thing at all as "dictating" fairness and justice.

Not even close.

Not even in the same city...much less the same ballpark.

No...I'll grant you that there was never a referendum about what "fairness" and "justice" mean, but then, there didn't have to be.

That's what the social contract is all about.

Further, any attempt at "dictating" either of those things overrides the social contract in preference to....well, the dictator's preference.

Very different animal.

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

Thanks, Spiff, you saved me a post.

Now head over to my "Evil Right Wingers..." thread and express your outrage.

[Agathon]

That's what the social contract is all about.

Further, any attempt at "dictating" either of those things overrides the social contract in preference to....well, the dictator's preference.

Have you just smoked crack? Have you ever read Leviathan? The whole point of Hobbes' political program is to set up an absolute power to enforce the contract.

Jesus.... are you trolling?

[Flubber]

Agathon

You are funny-- vel didn't bite-- in fcat specifically asked several times if you REALLY wanted to "go there" and then didn't "go there" himself. It serves no purpose to list the past atrocities on either side.

To have any kind of discussion, it only makes sense to discuss people's proposed or existing systems and argue about that.


Oh and "fairness" can never be dictated, Rules and regulations can. If they are "fair' the vast majority will accept their legitimacy. Fairness itself remains a subjective concept.

[Velociryx]

Yes. I have just smoked crack. I'm smoking some right now. Would you like some?



If you wish to believe that fairness and justice can be dictated, then this is precisely where the debate stalls out.

I don't buy into it.

Don't want any part of your vision of Utopia if that's at the core, because we're not even speaking the same language.

A revolutionary movement rising to power and deciding by fiat that "this is fair, and this is not fair" does not "fairness" make.

If you can't see that, then try removing the blinders of your own ideology for a moment or three.

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

[quote]If they are "fair' the vast majority will accept their legitimacy. Fairness itself remains a subjective concept.[quote]

No one really believes that. Everyone thinks that their version of fairness is the right one. And there are norms of debate when it comes to ethical notions like justice - it's amenable to rational debate.

It doesn't matter if vast numbers of people accept the way a society is run, it would still be possible to have two such societies with different norms of justice. It is still an open question as to whether either is just, if we take "just" in the sense it is used by normal people.

If you don't accept that, then you lapse into relativism and you have no reason to complain if you didn't like it.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by monkspider
Summary:

Vel et al: You guys want to kill kids and throw rocks at bunnies, and eat live bunnies.

Kid et al: No we don't.

Great ****ing thread.

More like,

Kid: I like Rage Against the Machine because I relate emotionally to their lyrics, but I'm too stupid to do a simple thought experiment, or even follow someone else's.

Vel et al: Your ideas can be shot full of holes by a group of kindergarteners subtext: you're a moron

Other Commies: You guys are beating a straw man to death!

Vel et al: No believe it or not it's a real man. Maybe the Wizard will give him a brain.

[Agathon]

A revolutionary movement rising to power and deciding by fiat that "this is fair, and this is not fair" does not "fairness" make.

Nor does a democratically elected government rising to power and deciding X or Y necessarily make it fair (that's an open question). That was the point of my original post.

But whatever standard is adopted, be it the right or wrong one, it will have to be dictated since the alternative is anarchy.

Besides, a revolutionary junta could just so happen to have the correct conception of justice.

[Velociryx]

Sikander!

Ag - are you quite sure that was your original point? Cos in reading your post, it sure don't appear that way. I mean, maybe I'm just too much of the imbecil you painted me as earlier, but I CAN read.

And no...if a democratically elected group decides something is fair, that doesn't make it fair by default, however, and here's the interesting thing:

There's mechanisms in place in democratic society such that, if a thing is decided upon, it must undergo a long review, and can be changed later through democratic processes.

This is not the case with your dictatorial approach to fairness.

If the head honcho says it's fair...then that's just the end of the story.

Maybe he'll change his mind later, and maybe he won't.

Note the difference?

Would you say that it is a relatively important one, or not really?

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

There's no difference, since the democratic standards that inform the process and speak to its legitimacy are themselves applied in an absolutist fashion.

Every form of government enforces its standard of fairness. It doesn't matter whether it is the right one or not.

A democracy says, "what's fair is what is enacted by majority vote". Once the vote is taken, that conception of fairness is enforced by the state.

You can argue about whether one standard is fairer than the other, but that doesn't change the fact that every standard will be enforced absolutely.

edit: grammar.

[Agathon]

If the head honcho says it's fair...then that's just the end of the story.

No, because that doesn't mean it is really fair.

"If the democratically elected government says its fair... then that's just the end of the story" makes the same mistake.

But complaining that it is unfair because it is enforced is an invalid argument because it is possible that real fairness may be enforced. Moreover, every conception of fairness must be enforced, or what's the point.

[Spiffor]

Vel:

Why do you assume Agathon's system will be ruled by a "head honcho" without checks and balances? Why couldn't the decision process be one that is subject to many different people, akin to what it is now?

In today's world, we have political institutions that dictate norms, after a long process within. Some of those norms (the ones for the judicial system) are called "justice". You may find them unjust from time to time, yet they are called "justice" nonetheless.

Should a system use the word "fairness" as a guiding principle for its policies, you bet the word "fairness" will have to be well defined by the political system (which will dictate it) for it to be politically useable. People may keep their own opinion of what actual fairness is (or "morality", or any word filled with judgemental value), but the officially used definition of "fairness" will be one imposed by the political system. The advantage of democracy is that we can change the political system if we're unhappy about it.