3 ms·

> Unfair? Unjust? Not really I'm not sure why you think that's neither unjust nor unfair. All you said is "it's random". I'm not sure why "it's random" implies

by HWR_14 4y ago

> Unfair? Unjust? Not really I'm not sure why you think that's neither unjust nor unfair. All you said is "it's random". I'm not sure why "it's random" implies it's not unfair or unjust.

wizofaus 4y ago
Randomness applies to everybody. "Unfair" is more often used to describe a situation where when those in category A do the same things as those in category B, but only those in one category get rewarded for it. But which category you're in to start with may well be down to random chance.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  > "Unfair" is more often used to describe a situation where when those in category A do the same things as those in category B, but only those in one category get rewarded for it. That's exactly the situation here. There are "lucky" and "unlucky" people. Those are your two categories.
  - kevinmalone 4y ago
    Unfair and unlucky are different concepts. Randomness could be perceived as lucky and unlucky, but that’s not what they’re saying. Randomness, if truly random, is as fair as it gets.
winnit 4y ago
That depends whether you consider things must either be just or unjust or whether they can simply not be just, without being an injustice.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  I don't see what the distinction you're making is. It seems things are either just or unjust. That seems like standard logic.
  - winnit 4y ago
    There can exist a third category in which things are neither just nor unjust. It really depends on whether your logic system is two-valued or many. There isn’t any universal standard. Can’t you see that there are distinctions in strength between trust, don’t trust and distrust? If you’ve never dealt with someone before, you might not trust them. But you wouldn’t distrust them without specific reason.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
pc86 4y ago
The randomness of life is only unfair or unjust if you deserve fame and accolades proportional to your effort simply because you put the effort in. You don't.

by HWR_14 4y ago

> Unfair? Unjust? Not really I'm not sure why you think that's neither unjust nor unfair. All you said is "it's random". I'm not sure why "it's random" implies it's not unfair or unjust.

wizofaus 4y ago

Randomness applies to everybody. "Unfair" is more often used to describe a situation where when those in category A do the same things as those in category B, but only those in one category get rewarded for it. But which category you're in to start with may well be down to random chance.

HWR_14 4y ago
> "Unfair" is more often used to describe a situation where when those in category A do the same things as those in category B, but only those in one category get rewarded for it. That's exactly the situation here. There are "lucky" and "unlucky" people. Those are your two categories.
- kevinmalone 4y ago
  Unfair and unlucky are different concepts. Randomness could be perceived as lucky and unlucky, but that’s not what they’re saying. Randomness, if truly random, is as fair as it gets.

winnit 4y ago

That depends whether you consider things must either be just or unjust or whether they can simply not be just, without being an injustice.

HWR_14 4y ago
I don't see what the distinction you're making is. It seems things are either just or unjust. That seems like standard logic.
- winnit 4y ago
  There can exist a third category in which things are neither just nor unjust. It really depends on whether your logic system is two-valued or many. There isn’t any universal standard. Can’t you see that there are distinctions in strength between trust, don’t trust and distrust? If you’ve never dealt with someone before, you might not trust them. But you wouldn’t distrust them without specific reason.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

pc86 4y ago

The randomness of life is only unfair or unjust if you deserve fame and accolades proportional to your effort simply because you put the effort in. You don't.