Life isn't fair...

[whistler]

Fairness is nothing more than a state of mind. What is the definition of fairness? I submit there isn't one...at least not a one size fits all definition. It is my contention if something cannot be defined it does not exist. If it does not exist it has no place being forced on anyone by anyone, let alone Federal, State, or local governments. The debate over what is fair is futile at best.

 

[layoutshooter]

Fairness is nothing more than a state of mind. What is the definition of fairness? I submit there isn't one...at least not a one size fits all definition. It is my contention if something cannot be defined it does not exist. If it does not exist it has no place being forced on anyone by anyone, let alone Federal, State, or local governments. The debate over what is fair is futile at best.

I agree. That is why it ticks me off SO much when I hear Obama talking about the rich paying their 'fair share' of taxes. There really is an easy way to have the rich pay their fair share, just have ONE tax rate that EVERYONE pays. That WOULD be 'fair'. Better yet, do away with the income tax altogether and move to a consumption tax. Then the "underworld" would be able to pay THEIR "fair share" as well. We have been making it very difficult for them to cover THEIR costs of a functioning society. We need to get better at that.

 

[Turtle]

Fairness is very easily defined. It's simply evenhandedness, the quality of being fair, free from bias or injustice. The problem comes when people want to redefine it for their own purposes. There are lots of words like that where people want to just give them new definitions to fit their situations and agendas. Baby, child, militia, cult, and fair... these are all popularly redefined words to better fit some agenda. For example, the rich paying "their fair share" of taxes, when it means paying a higher percentage than others, is hardly something that is free from bias. It's straight up, blatant, in-your-face discrimination.

 

[whistler]

Fairness is very easily defined. It's simply evenhandedness, the quality of being fair, free from bias or injustice.

Sorry but your description of fairness is not definitive either. Evenhandedness is subjective, Nothing is free from bias, and, without the definition of fair there is no such thing as the "quality of being fair". Injustice is not easily defined either as "justice" is as ambiguous as fairness.

 

[Turtle]

Sorry but your description of fairness is not definitive either. Evenhandedness is subjective, Nothing is free from bias, and, without the definition of fair there is no such thing as the "quality of being fair". Injustice is not easily defined either as "justice" is as ambiguous as fairness.

In that case, I suggest you look up both "fair" and "fairness" in the dictionary. You might also want to look up "definitive." Or perhaps even better, please tell us your definition of "fairness," and perhaps "justice" while you're at it. Just because these terms aren't codified in absolute, one-size-fits-all concrete terms doesn't mean they do not, as you submit, exist. They do, absolutely.

Evenhandedness is subjective only to someone who isn't evenhanded. If they are evenhanded, then they objective, and without bias. I agree that those who want to redefine "fairness" for their own purposes will do so while slathering it with bias, but when they do that it's not really fairness without bias, now is it? Fairness, when employed as defined, is done so without bias. And yes, there are plenty of things and actions which exist without bias, since bias entails a value-directed departure from accuracy, objectivity and balance. If you can make a decision or consider a question without a prejudiced value-directed departure from the above, then your actions qualify as fair, evenhanded and without bias.

 

[whistler]

In that case, I suggest you look up both "fair" and "fairness" in the dictionary.

A definition contrived by a group of lexicographers who form a general consensus of what these words mean does not necessarily capture the true essence or spirit of the terms.

You might also want to look up "definitive." Or perhaps even better, please tell us your definition of "fairness," and perhaps "justice" while you're at it.

My definition of fairness and justice are immaterial as they have been formed with a bias.

Just because these terms aren't codified in absolute, one-size-fits-all concrete terms doesn't mean they do not, as you submit, exist. They do, absolutely.

I vehemently disagree.

Evenhandedness is subjective only to someone who isn't evenhanded. If they are evenhanded, then they objective, and without bias.

Even Handedness is in fact subjective in that it is based on one's level of moral values which, in turn, are a sum total of what they have learned and experienced in their microcosm. If it cannot be pointed to as something unmistakable I submit it is not a valid concept.

I agree that those who want to redefine "fairness" for their own purposes will do so while slathering it with bias, but when they do that it's not really fairness without bias, now is it?

Actually that is exactly what it is, hence the problem.

Fairness, when employed as defined, is done so without bias. And yes, there are plenty of things and actions which exist without bias, since bias entails a value-directed departure from accuracy, objectivity and balance. If you can make a decision or consider a question without a prejudiced value-directed departure from the above, then your actions qualify as fair, evenhanded and without bias.

Precisely. Which is why there is no such thing.