[PAX] - Fairness | INFJ Forum

[PAX] Fairness

Gaze

Donor
Sep 5, 2009
28,259
44,730
1,906
MBTI
INFPishy
Most of the causes of social justice are based in an effort to encourage greater fairness in decision making which reduces the amount of social injustice in the world today.

But what is fairness . . . It's not easy word to define. Here's one working description of the concept based on the work of John Rawls as described on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Rawls’s original thought is that equality, or a fair distribution of advantages, is to be addressed as a background matter by constitutional and legal provisions that structure social institutions. While fair institutions will influence the life chances of everyone in society, they will leave individuals free to exercise their basic liberties as they see fit within this fair set of rules.

. . .

Rawls’s suggestion is, in effect, that we should put all our effort into seeing to it that “the rules of the game” are fair. Once society has been organized around a set of fair rules, people can set about freely “playing” the game, without interference.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/rawls/


So, my questions are how do we define "fairness" for greater social justice for the modern world today.

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

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
 
Last edited:
I have an issue with the word 'fair'.

...A little over a year ago, I was robbed at gunpoint. I lost my job the same night, and had to find other housing a little over two weeks after that.

The man who robbed me- let's call him Mr. Smith- was already a convicted felon at the time. He's probably in his late 20s, early 30s- from an underprivileged group of people (I won't bother to mention which one), and has likely been in and out of jail most of his life.

Fairness.

He robbed me. Pointed a gun at me. But I'm not angry.

They're going to send him to jail. He's probably not been *out* of jail for very long.

It's because of who I am that I have to stop and think about who this man is, and why he was in jail in the first place. How old was he when he first went into jail? What was his family like? Did he feel the need to survive in jail by joining certain groups? Was he not taken care of psychologically (That question is rhetorical), so that when he was released, he had no idea how to function in the real world?

He robbed me, and got $50. For $50, he (facetiously, I think) threatened the life of another human being. He didn't hurt me. He yelled at me, took what I had, and let me get away. At one part during the robbery, he laughed half-heartedly when I offered him the change in my pockets as well as the bills. "I don't want that shit."

What drove him to that? Why was he so desperate and detached? He's obviously sick. What's his situation?

He obviously needs help. I think he's broken in an absolutely regrettable way.


But they're going to send this sick man back to prison, where crime is the norm, where unhealthy psychological situations (mainly from the prisoners inflicting it upon themselves, but also from the fact that they're trapped within brick walls) are rampant. I can't see him getting any better.

Is it fair that he won't get help, but only punishment? I don't know.

Is it fair that he probably doesn't know how to take help, and wouldn't if offered it? No.


I feel so sorry for him.


So in this situation, I don't know what is 'fair'. I just don't know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hush and Gaze
I have an issue with the word 'fair'.

...A little over a year ago, I was robbed at gunpoint. I lost my job the same night, and had to find other housing a little over two weeks after that.

The man who robbed me- let's call him Mr. Smith- was already a convicted felon at the time. He's probably in his late 20s, early 30s- from an underprivileged group of people (I won't bother to mention which one), and has likely been in and out of jail most of his life.

Fairness.

He robbed me. Pointed a gun at me. But I'm not angry.

They're going to send him to jail. He's probably not been *out* of jail for very long.

It's because of who I am that I have to stop and think about who this man is, and why he was in jail in the first place. How old was he when he first went into jail? What was his family like? Did he feel the need to survive in jail by joining certain groups? Was he not taken care of psychologically (That question is rhetorical), so that when he was released, he had no idea how to function in the real world?

He robbed me, and got $50. For $50, he (facetiously, I think) threatened the life of another human being. He didn't hurt me. He yelled at me, took what I had, and let me get away. At one part during the robbery, he laughed half-heartedly when I offered him the change in my pockets as well as the bills. "I don't want that shit."

What drove him to that? Why was he so desperate and detached? He's obviously sick. What's his situation?

He obviously needs help. I think he's broken in an absolutely regrettable way.


But they're going to send this sick man back to prison, where crime is the norm, where unhealthy psychological situations (mainly from the prisoners inflicting it upon themselves, but also from the fact that they're trapped within brick walls) are rampant. I can't see him getting any better.

Is it fair that he won't get help, but only punishment? I don't know.

Is it fair that he probably doesn't know how to take help, and wouldn't if offered it? No.


I feel so sorry for him.


So in this situation, I don't know what is 'fair'. I just don't know.

This is my opinion:

Fair is for him to face both the good and bad consequences of his decisions. That doesn't excuse society from improving the penal system. You can also go beyond fairness by showing him mercy/forgiveness (maybe a letter, visit, etc.) if you choose.

My general idea of fairness is all parties shouldering their responsibilities in such a way that violations have consequences, punishments are appropriate and humane, opportunities for mercy are given when appropriate; restitution is made to victims where possible and rehabilitation is available to the willing.

To add, everything moderated by common sense which tends to disappear in any situation where unreasonable large amounts of money can be gained through litigation.
 
...

You can ... go beyond fairness by showing him mercy/forgiveness (maybe a letter, visit, etc.) if you choose.

My general idea of fairness is all parties shouldering their responsibilities in such a way that violations have consequences, punishments are appropriate and humane, opportunities for mercy are given when appropriate; restitution is made to victims where possible and rehabilitation is available to the willing.

I agree with your definition. It is fitting.

I think the reason I have an issue with thinking of this guy (even if he did hold a gun to my face), or any guy, going to prison is that I can't agree with... the idea of prison. Something about that makes my soul hurt.

It's ineffective and inhumane.

At the same time, yes, I agree, there should be deterrents. I wish there were another way. I really do.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: willow
I have an issue with the word 'fair'.

...A little over a year ago, I was robbed at gunpoint. I lost my job the same night, and had to find other housing a little over two weeks after that.

The man who robbed me- let's call him Mr. Smith- was already a convicted felon at the time. He's probably in his late 20s, early 30s- from an underprivileged group of people (I won't bother to mention which one), and has likely been in and out of jail most of his life.

Fairness.

He robbed me. Pointed a gun at me. But I'm not angry.

They're going to send him to jail. He's probably not been *out* of jail for very long.

It's because of who I am that I have to stop and think about who this man is, and why he was in jail in the first place. How old was he when he first went into jail? What was his family like? Did he feel the need to survive in jail by joining certain groups? Was he not taken care of psychologically (That question is rhetorical), so that when he was released, he had no idea how to function in the real world?

He robbed me, and got $50. For $50, he (facetiously, I think) threatened the life of another human being. He didn't hurt me. He yelled at me, took what I had, and let me get away. At one part during the robbery, he laughed half-heartedly when I offered him the change in my pockets as well as the bills. "I don't want that shit."

What drove him to that? Why was he so desperate and detached? He's obviously sick. What's his situation?

He obviously needs help. I think he's broken in an absolutely regrettable way.


But they're going to send this sick man back to prison, where crime is the norm, where unhealthy psychological situations (mainly from the prisoners inflicting it upon themselves, but also from the fact that they're trapped within brick walls) are rampant. I can't see him getting any better.

Is it fair that he won't get help, but only punishment? I don't know.

Is it fair that he probably doesn't know how to take help, and wouldn't if offered it? No.


I feel so sorry for him.


So in this situation, I don't know what is 'fair'. I just don't know.

you're right. His circumstances didn't provide him with many options or choices. So, I agree that fairness should not simply be about penalties for bad choices. It should be about having access to the same opportunities which would've made it less likely that he would need to steal in order to survive. Apart from accepting responsibilities for his decision, there should be a sense that he can rise above this situation and not be condemned. The personal, social, political, or other problems which lead to the development of his situation have to be addressed in order for him to have the chance to better his circumstances. So, I would argue that a fair chance involves having access and opportunities which allow him to have a chance to improve his situation rather than reduce him to "criminal" status. In other words, it may not be fair for him to have another chance but I think it's fair if he's at least given another option outside the limited options he's been given to make a living for himself.
 
I agree with your definition. It is fitting.

I think the reason I have an issue with thinking of this guy (even if he did hold a gun to my face), or any guy, going to prison. Something about that makes my soul hurt.

At the same time, yes, I agree, there should be deterrents. I wish there were another way. I really do.

In his case going to prison isn't a deterrent. It is the punishment set by the law and is the path he chose (regardless of the circumstances that led to that decision.) You seem to have compassion for him so if you can safely share that with him then consider doing that because forgiveness can make a difference in people's lives. Many people have never been shown that kindness and sometimes it's enough to motivate a person to change their path.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gaze
In his case going to prison isn't a deterrent. It is the punishment set by the law and is the path he chose (regardless of the circumstances that led to that decision.) You seem to have compassion for him so if you can safely share that with him then consider doing that because forgiveness can make a difference in people's lives. Many people have never been shown that kindness and sometimes it's enough to motivate a person to change their path.

+1
 
Rite: I wish there was a 'buddy system'. ... Like, a person who gets out of jail is required to have a 'Buddy' who is with them at (almost) all times. They'd share a house, a workplace, etc- just so the person who got out of prison could learn to adjust to the outside world, *and* that way they wouldn't have to feel alone when they got out.

willow: I've been considering writing him a letter, but I have mixed feelings about this. I feel horribly for him, but at the same time I am somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of being around him. I think I'm afraid, maybe? ...It's interesting how I can feel both at once and it not seem contradictory inside my head.
 
willow: I've been considering writing him a letter, but I have mixed feelings about this. I feel horribly for him, but at the same time I am somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of being around him. I think I'm afraid, maybe? ...It's interesting how I can feel both at once and it not seem contradictory inside my head.

Here is one way to approach it. You could write the letter for the therapeutic benefits it would give you. You are under no obligation to send it. You can take the time to consider it carefully but at least you would put your thoughts down. If you do decide to send it be sure not to include any information that would reduce your security. Have someone else check it over first. If you are afraid remember, that you don't have to deliver the letter yourself. The most important thing is to proceed cautiously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kgal
This is really a very complex subject that I've reflected on probably my whole life, and I have to say my conclusions have evolved over time. I would say I started off with the cored ideal that fairness is when consequences are properly fit to the behavior. And I still believe that. But how to incorporate this concept into the really real world? That's a lot tougher question.

In a fair wolrd, people who worked hard and behaved decently would prosper. People who were lazy would starve and people who behaved badly would have to suffer the consequences of their actions (which would be perportional to their wrong). Well maybe statistically that works, but there are so many exceptions that we have to stop and examine what's going on in order to make the world more fair. There are simply too many good decent people that life shits on, and too many scoundrels that get ahead. Sometimes is just the sense of disporportionality: Joe was born into a poor family and even though he works hard, no one will give him the loan to start his own business. Tom is actually more of a laid back buy who spends most of his time surfing, but the interest off of his inheritance gives him money to play with. We instinctually sense that this dispreportionality is unfair, unjust.

We know from history that if we choose not to act, the disproportionality simply increases. No one except extremists wants to go back to laissez faire.

There are those who want to solve the problem by redistributing the marbles. This is not a bad idea, but in its extreme form it also causes an increase in unfairness by forcing some to work for others.

I tend to be rather untilitarian in my approach to a solution -- what will bring the most fairness to the most people? Basically life is never going to be completely fair, so fairness is not an objective we can obtain, but an ideal that we shoot for.

Here are some of the thoughts which I haven't always held, but have evolved over time:

1. The primary purpose of the justice system is to punish offenders. Sure it may have some detterant value, and sure there is possibility for rehabilitation. But those are not the PRIMARY purpose. Justice is: an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. This is because before justice, what we had was "two eyes for that eye, and I'll take the eye of your firstborn son too, and while I'm at it, I'll take the eyes of everyone in the village." By satisfying humanity's inward need for fairness and justice, we were able to put a stop to much of the vengence stuff that was going on. The more we move towards "justice" being rehab and deterrence or simply taking scary people off the streets, the more human nature will scream out for justice, and vigilantism will rise up and we'll be right back in the middle of vengence cycles.

2. In a hard core down to earth "rubber meets the road" sense, what WORKS economically is a system that accomodates more than one ideal. It will allow people to be rewarded for their efforts, but at the same time care for those who don't have the facility to make their own way (low intelligence, physical disability, mental problems). I think our society, because we have both conservatives and liberals who are forced to compromise with each other, is much fairer than many other societies, but there is certainly room for improvement.

I see my "multiple ideal" model in ancient Israelite society. Everyone began with an equal plot of land. If you worked it, you ate and even prospered, if you didn't, your family became poor. But at the same time, a portion of everything you produced or earned was set aside for the poor, "the widow, the orphan, the foreigner." So there was always a modest redistribution of wealth going on. No one went hungry, because it was NOT a crime to go into a farmers field and pick just what you need for your hunger. Further, every fifty years, the "game" was reset to start. All the land went back to the families who originally held it, so if grampa was a slacker, his grandchildren would still get their own chance. I could go on and on. It's really a fascinating system, and while I wouldn't do a "cut and paste" onto our own society, I still think we can learn from this.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: willow
1. The primary purpose of the justice system is to punish offenders. Sure it may have some detterant value, and sure there is possibility for rehabilitation. But those are not the PRIMARY purpose. Justice is: an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. This is because before justice, what we had was "two eyes for that eye, and I'll take the eye of your firstborn son too, and while I'm at it, I'll take the eyes of everyone in the village." By satisfying humanity's inward need for fairness and justice, we were able to put a stop to much of the vengence stuff that was going on. The more we move towards "justice" being rehab and deterrence or simply taking scary people off the streets, the more human nature will scream out for justice, and vigilantism will rise up and we'll be right back in the middle of vengence cycles.

I don't think human nature is intrinsically wedded to anger and the wish for retribution.

I'm not angry at the man who took my money and helped me lose my job. I'm not angry at my father, who was hardly there even when he was, and did nothing. I'm not angry at the one who came too close and then wouldn't go away, despite my begging.

No. I regret the actions of these men, and I wish that they could be helped to make better decisions in the future.

If tomorrow they were to change the system, and the man who robbed me was to be the first one to get a chance at rehabilitation instead of simply being 'punished' to right that half-forgotten wrong, I wouldn't be angry. I'd be overjoyed!

I think you're going too far in assuming that all people are consumed with anger at those people who 'trespass' against them.

I think it's time for us to really give forgiveness a chance. If we keep mistrusting, where does the love come from? You have to sow to reap.
 
[MENTION=4672]udremeei[/MENTION] - I admire your compassion. I feel somewhat similar. [MENTION=4576]GracieRuth[/MENTION] - interesting and provocative points. [MENTION=4498]willow[/MENTION] - good advice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: willow
I don't think human nature is intrinsically wedded to anger and the wish for retribution.

I'm not angry at the man who took my money and helped me lose my job. I'm not angry at my father, who was hardly there even when he was, and did nothing. I'm not angry at the one who came too close and then wouldn't go away, despite my begging.

No. I regret the actions of these men, and I wish that they could be helped to make better decisions in the future.

If tomorrow they were to change the system, and the man who robbed me was to be the first one to get a chance at rehabilitation instead of simply being 'punished' to right that half-forgotten wrong, I wouldn't be angry. I'd be overjoyed!

I think you're going too far in assuming that all people are consumed with anger at those people who 'trespass' against them.

I think it's time for us to really give forgiveness a chance. If we keep mistrusting, where does the love come from? You have to sow to reap.

Some people are blessed with a naturally compassionate nature but many people demand justice for wrongs and they are not incorrect to do so. There is a need for the scales to be balanced but fairly. Forgiveness is a beautiful practice but it cannot be demanded. It must be freely given. Also forgiveness does not mean you trust the offender. What it means is that they are accountable for the wrong they have done but you do not condemn them. That allows a chance for trust to be re-built.
 
I think you're going too far in assuming that all people are consumed with anger at those people who 'trespass' against them.

I think you're going to far assuming that anger is involved with the desire for justice. Further, I'm speaking in statistical norms, not absolutes. Most people have five fingers per hand, but not all. So what? Five fingers is still the norm.

Please don't think I'm unsympathetic to your views: when I was young I believed as you do. I changed my mind because when I did a reality check, I saw that this approach simply allowed bad behavior to worsen and flourish. It's simply not good for society. I've made the choice that I'm going to give preferential treatement to the innocent, the decent, the hard working -- I will not have them be bullied just because I'd LIKE for everyone to just get along.

Maybe its just my pet peeve, but when people are bullied (whether its in elementary school or a fascist society) I hold those who stand silently by as equally responsible, and perhaps even more morally reprehensible because they have the audacity to think they are descent people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gaze
willow: Yes. I don't trust him, though I have an issue with my not being able to trust him; part of the reason why I haven't written him is because I don't have a P.O. box, and I'm not comfortable with him having my home address- how compassionate is that?

And you're right. No one should be forced to forgive. That's not how it works. Forcing it means that the forgiveness would be a lie.

I guess it's just my crystal-ness showing. >.>
 
willow: Yes. I don't trust him, though I have an issue with my not being able to trust him; part of the reason why I haven't written him is because I don't have a P.O. box, and I'm not comfortable with him having my home address- how compassionate is that?

Compassion isn't the only value of importance. Wisdom is very important also. You must think of your security.

I agree with GracieRuth about the importance of consequences. Many people think that forgiveness means that you erase the consequences of behaviour. Sometimes, it's possible but there are many situations, especially when people are not genuinely repentant, that consequences are an important part of the learning process for the violator. It's a principle we even see in nature. If you jump from a high building without some means of breaking your fall you can't escape a mighty crash when you hit the ground. The consequence is inescapable no matter how much compassion others have for you. It's good because you'll learn the importance of respecting the laws of gravity. The same principle applies to moral laws and the laws of the state.

Forgiveness doesn't seek to make you exempt from consequences. Instead, forgiveness says, "Try again. You are not irredeemable. You are not on the garbage heap." The appropriate place for your attacker to try again happens to be in prison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gaze and udremeei
I hold those who stand silently by as equally responsible, and perhaps even more morally reprehensible because they have the audacity to think they are descent people.

Kinda agree but as @willow said, we should approach situations cautiously and wisely. Intervening is not always the best response. It can sometimes do more harm than good. But I do agree that as a society we have become quite comfortable sitting back, not doing anything to get involved, which leads to a socially sanctioned form of indifference or reluctance to help someone. It's easier for us to stand back or standby and watch rather than say or do anything else to compromise ourselves or stand out.
 
In his case going to prison isn't a deterrent. It is the punishment set by the law and is the path he chose (regardless of the circumstances that led to that decision.) You seem to have compassion for him so if you can safely share that with him then consider doing that because forgiveness can make a difference in people's lives. Many people have never been shown that kindness and sometimes it's enough to motivate a person to change their path.

Take into consideration that there are far too many people who have their paths severely limited for them. Also, just because it's the law doesn't make it right. Prison is a convenient way to brush problems under the rug and to allow the deterioration of social skills and a healthy mind and body to run rampant, for the soul to wither away. It's just that, convenient, and it doesn't do anything to solve the problem. If you want justice, educate people, otherwise "punishment" won't have any effect or significance if people never come to see anything wrong with their behavior/if the punishment never means anything to the individual because they see it as unwarranted, and thus they lash out, or because they simply don't care. Wasted time, wasted resources, and wasted human potential. I agree with your definition of fairness, and what you described doesn't exist, unfortunately, but I suppose that's why we have to strive towards making it reality rather than an ideal. There isn't enough rehabilitation offered, punishments are not appropriate and humane (prisons are noxious institutions, you cage an animal and see how their situation improves), and I believe that there is insufficient mercy.

I live in an incredibly damaged society that does little to actually help people, especially given the resources it has, where the notion of a community of support has largely disintegrated, where fear and anger constantly threaten to (or actually do) overtake unity and understanding, and it's a damn shame. With how much I know humans are capable of doing, and with the resources at our disposal, it's a damn shame that we allow conditions to persist as they have. It's as if the humanity has been drained from many, and an emphasis on intense individualism (at the expense of the community) and greed has become the standard.

It isn't fair that someone would get better medical care here than someone else because they have more money, but it's true. They don't deserve it any more than the individual who's low-income, every life is of equal importance, but that's how our society is structured. It isn't fair that all the gains in wealth have gone disproportionately to extremely small fraction of the population while the majority works their asses off and makes far less than they deserve. Social and economic justice are constantly compromised because those in power naturally favor their own interests, which are the interests of the wealthy.

Fairness would be in a higher degree of self-autonomy and more power to shape policies, to have a voice in how one's life is forcibly shaped by external forces. A rule can't be fair if it neglects the voice of the people, if it indirectly serves to suppress social and personal advancement. In this country, it would be erroneous to say that "every man is born equal," because the vastly differing environments and unequal opportunities that abound change one person's prospects from birth. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

Fairness, then, is also equal opportunity, which is in short supply.
 
Great points from everyone so far. Keep em coming. :)
 
I have an issue with the word 'fair'.

...A little over a year ago, I was robbed at gunpoint. I lost my job the same night, and had to find other housing a little over two weeks after that.

The man who robbed me- let's call him Mr. Smith- was already a convicted felon at the time. He's probably in his late 20s, early 30s- from an underprivileged group of people (I won't bother to mention which one), and has likely been in and out of jail most of his life.

Fairness.

Maybe he's just a psychopath and feels nothing. There are people in this world who are dead souls. Whether one believes in "evil" or not, this is its origin.