• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's the definition of "fair"?

What's the definition of "fair"?

  • Any rule made applies to everyone.

    Votes: 6 33.3%

  • Everyone gets the same opportunities.

    Votes: 8 44.4%

  • Everyone is treated in such a way to wind up with similar results.

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • Everyone leaves everyone else and everyone else's stuff alone.

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • Personal responsbility.

    Votes: 3 16.7%

  • Whatever’s average.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • Grading on a curve.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • Nothing is fair, so that’s fair.

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • Some obvious things were left out of these choices.

    Votes: 7 38.9%

  • This poll has no practical or intellectual value.

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • Total voters
    18
GreenvilleGrows

GreenvilleGrows

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
566
Reaction score
221
Location
My version of reality
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We hear a lot of discussion about what’s “fair”. What does “fair” mean to you? Does it mean that people get treated the same? That they have the same opportunity? Does it mean everyone gets to live the same way? What’s “fair”?

Multiple choice and please expound.
 
Fair = just
 
Its a word with multiple meanings and infinite application.
 
evanescence said:
The concept of fairness and justice are both useless. Neither exist.
Click to expand...

Like any other social construct, from money to rights, none of these things exist, but they are useful due to human predisposition to the concepts.

Thus we should continue to argue and define them, because even though the concept is imaginary, the results of people acting on those concepts is real and useful.
 
Last edited:
evanescence said:
The concept of fairness and justice are both useless. Neither exist.
Click to expand...

In our society your are for the most part correct....fair to us is what the majority votes for
 
From Merriam-Webster: "A gathering of buyers and sellers at a particular place and time for trade"
 
In advance it is easy to argue "fair" does not exist, never has. However, trying to define fairness beyond a starting point is a total waste of time. Fairness is leveling the playing field for everyone to walk onto free of bias. Once they are actually on the playing field, fairness is thrown out the window (which is as it should be.)
 
OrphanSlug said:
In advance it is easy to argue "fair" does not exist, never has. However, trying to define fairness beyond a starting point is a total waste of time. Fairness is leveling the playing field for everyone to walk onto free of bias. Once they are actually on the playing field, fairness is thrown out the window (which is as it should be.)
Click to expand...

Ideally, it would be this way. However, there are huge practical limitations towards achieving this ideal.

For example, it would be hugely difficult or next to impossible to feed all children to the same nutritional standards or educate them to the same level before they start their adulthood to begin achieving the fruits of their labor, but all from the same starting point. It would probably require that parents don't raise their own children. (which is a concept that horrifies me).
 
megaprogman said:
Like any other social construct, from money to rights, none of these things exist, but they are useful due to human predisposition to the concepts.

Thus we should continue to argue and define them, because even though the concept is imaginary, the results of people acting on those concepts is real and useful.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Fairness and justice have been redefined through out history numerous times. That will, of course, continue until our species becomes extinct.

lpast said:
In our society your are for the most part correct....fair to us is what the majority votes for
Click to expand...

I disagree. The majority in this country are too stupid and easily manipulated. Legislation is being controlled by a small minority.

OrphanSlug said:
In advance it is easy to argue "fair" does not exist, never has. However, trying to define fairness beyond a starting point is a total waste of time. Fairness is leveling the playing field for everyone to walk onto free of bias. Once they are actually on the playing field, fairness is thrown out the window (which is as it should be.)
Click to expand...

Love the nic, btw.

But i disagree with your premise. There can never be an equal playing field. Equilibrium in nature is always a goal, but it never actually happens, thus the need for negative feedback mechanisms in biology. Life is in a constant state of change, and that makes equality impossible.
 
megaprogman said:
Ideally, it would be this way. However, there are huge practical limitations towards achieving this ideal.

For example, it would be hugely difficult or next to impossible to feed all children to the same nutritional standards or educate them to the same level before they start their adulthood to begin achieving the fruits of their labor, but all from the same starting point. It would probably require that parents don't raise their own children. (which is a concept that horrifies me).
Click to expand...

Where I was going with this was far more simple and high level than the status of raising, or aiding, or feeding kids. I was going more for the thought of just a "level playing field" having to do with rights and responsibilities. "Once on the playing field" has more to do with once everyone has equal rights, the rest is up to the individual through self determination (which goes against any concept or insertion of continued "fairness" throughout one's life.) I was not really thinking in any socialistic concepts of equality throughout life but more baseline expectations of "fairness" we should apply to all at birth, then let the chips fall where they may. I am not after any real governmental or religious based social interference in the application of "fairness." They tend to, historically speaking, destroy this anyway.
 
evanescence said:
Love the nic, btw.

But i disagree with your premise. There can never be an equal playing field. Equilibrium in nature is always a goal, but it never actually happens, thus the need for negative feedback mechanisms in biology. Life is in a constant state of change, and that makes equality impossible.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

See #14, that is more what I was hinting at. Equal playing field has to do more with basic human rights, not really anything else as there is no real "fair" way to insert fairness over the course of one's life. It is just a flawed argument to suggest we can continually control fairness throughout society. But we can strive for a baseline, and entry set of rights that come with a huge responsibility passed to each.

Personally, I think that is what has been lost over the course of US history. The concept of responsibility has been lost to continued "fairness" interference. Perhaps with good intentions every now and then, but responsibility has been discarded long ago.
 
Last edited:
OrphanSlug said:
Where I was going with this was far more simple and high level than the status of raising, or aiding, or feeding kids. I was going more for the thought of just a "level playing field" having to do with rights and responsibilities. "Once on the playing field" has more to do with once everyone has equal rights, the rest is up to the individual through self determination (which goes against any concept or insertion of continued "fairness" throughout one's life.) I was not really thinking in any socialistic concepts of equality throughout life but more baseline expectations of "fairness" we should apply to all at birth, then let the chips fall where they may. I am not after any real governmental or religious based social interference in the application of "fairness." They tend to, historically speaking, destroy this anyway.
Click to expand...

I guess when I see the term "level playing field" I tend to think equal starting positions, or else it is surely not equal and without that equality, society cannot be a meritocracy as outside (of the individual) advantage plays an absolutely huge role in determining outcomes for people based on any effort they put in.

Without that, I don't think the term "level playing field" is in any way close to accurate to describe how our society is structured either in reality or in terms of equal under the law.
 
A fair system is one that affects people equally.

That is different than a system where a single rule is applied equally to everyone. Those types of systems are often unfair.
 
Krhazy said:
A fair system is one that affects people equally.

That is different than a system where a single rule is applied equally to everyone. Those types of systems are often unfair.
Click to expand...

I guess the question is:

Would a fair system seek to address unfair inputs to it or would it apply rules the same without asking why?

Thinking about it, I think the answer is "yes" as there can be many types of fair systems.
 
Last edited:
Fair , is a nice word , all nations and all people like it .. Treat me fair I will produce, treat me fair I will honest, treat me fair I will be grestful , treat me fair I will be always fair !!

Also, it depends on culture and nation's interpretation to fairness , fair in west is equal, justice, overdo! And vise versa could be in east!!

Governments interpretation of fairness is also depends on principles , socialism fairness means the government is the only owners, capitalism fairness is that give money to everybody let them enjoy for sometime and don't talk about how much you should return and for hoe long , nobody will suffer except in crisis and that rear happens!


Fairness in relegions is justice!!

Nice poll and meaningful ,,

Sorry for typo, from iPhone!

Thank you
 
OrphanSlug said:
Thank you.

See #14, that is more what I was hinting at. Equal playing field has to do more with basic human rights, not really anything else as there is no real "fair" way to insert fairness over the course of one's life. It is just a flawed argument to suggest we can continually control fairness throughout society. But we can strive for a baseline, and entry set of rights that come with a huge responsibility passed to each.

Personally, I think that is what has been lost over the course of US history. The concept of responsibility has been lost to continued "fairness" interference. Perhaps with good intentions every now and then, but responsibility has been discarded long ago.
Click to expand...

Even basic rights aren't guaranteed, but I see your point. That's what I hate the most about life- that nothing is guaranteed.
 
evanescence said:
Even basic rights aren't guaranteed, but I see your point. That's what I hate the most about life- that nothing is guaranteed.
Click to expand...

The way I see it, in that lack of guarantee and structure to define life and its meaning, we are free to define it (and thus our society) for ourselves based on our preference, which is an amazing and exciting freedom.
 
lpast said:
In our society your are for the most part correct....fair to us is what the majority votes for
Click to expand...

so the holocaust and slavery were "fair"
 
TurtleDude said:
so the holocaust and slavery were "fair"
Click to expand...

That's the problem with the word fair or other similar, if we contextualize it enough we can portray anything as fair (or just or moral whatever you want), yet its next to impossible to use these words without context.

So, to answer both you and lpast, both of you are correct.
 
fair is you cutting a piece of cake in half and me getting first choice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom