3 ms·

> Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair. > because the stuff they get for existing has to co

• chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Your statement doesn't hold unless we assume "it is unfair for one person to provide for the needs of another (unless it is reciprocated)", and it isn't at all clear that we can take that axiomatically. the axiom is more like "it is unfair to force one person to provide for the needs of another." obviously some people would disagree, which is their right. however by making this axiom and their disagreements with it explicit, we can discuss the reality of the situation more clearly. > if we were to assume that one person could, through their labour, provide for the needs of everyone else, why does it obviously follow that it is "unfair" for everyone to survive solely that person's labour? well would it be fair to force that person to provide for the needs of everyone, if they could do so but chose not to? > More generally, it really isn't clear to me that these questions have such simplistic answers. agreed. but discussion can help us to understand the question better, and perhaps if we realize that there is no "right" answer then that conclusion could still help us to create a society where everyone is better off.
  • mrow84 6y ago
    > the axiom is more like "it is unfair to force one person to provide for the needs of another." I think this seems like a reasonable statement (to me), but unlike for the axiom I provided, the original claim, that "fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair", does not immediately follow from your modified version. Reading over the various answers people have provided, it seems clear to me that many people follow a similar line of reasoning, trying to argue from the (let's take it as axiomatic) unfairness of forcing someone else to do something, but that really isn't a necessary part of the original claim. Returning to the extreme example of one person who could provide for everyone, we see this line of argument in your counter-question: > would it be fair to force that person to provide for the needs of everyone, if they could do so but chose not to? As we have agreed that it is unfair to coerce someone, the answer is clearly "no", but that isn't the only possibility in our scenario, because they could equally have decided that they do want to work to provide for the needs of everyone. This (to me) makes it clear that the issue really rests on how this individual (and, in the real world, each member of society) feels about their obligations to others. Yes - if they (or we) have decided not to provide for others, then being forced to do so would be "unfair", but if, on the other hand, they (we) are happy to provide for others without coercion, then there is no apparent source of coercion (certainly not from the axiom you provided). In short, "fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair" does not follow from your modified axiom, and instead is predicated on the beliefs of the "everyone" in question. As a somewhat separate issue, some appear to have the impression that these kinds of beliefs are in some way fundamental, but to me it is incredibly clear that they are (at least typically) almost entirely socially contingent. Therefore, as I see it, it is entirely possible for society to shift back and forth between one that (collectively) believes in providing for others, and one that does not, without "coercion" in the sense as used throughout this discussion. > discussion can help us to understand the question better, and perhaps if we realize that there is no "right" answer then that conclusion could still help us to create a society where everyone is better off I agree!