Opinion What would a “fair life” look like?

Life can never philosophically be "fair" because of the subjective nature of "fairness." Like how you can have a man born into wealth, who achieved the highest powered position in the Country, and arguably the World, who still views it as "unfair" when he didnt get to keep it as long as he desired.

We cannot make life fair to everyone, for everyone, or in the eyes of everyone. The best we can do is create systems which generate fairness...imperfectly.
 
A "fair" life would see the government take everyone's kids shortly after birth. Raise them in a homogenous education facility and then release them into the world accordingly. The kids would never know who their birth parents were and the economic/social advantages that parents give their kids would be mitigated. Kids would succeed or fail solely on their individual merit since they would all be cycling through the same preparation.

Tangentially, I wonder what it would do the birth rate. The cost of raising your kids disappears so there's no economic limitation on how many you can have. But I would imagine that lots of women would probably not want to go through 9 months of pregnancy just to hand their baby off to the state.
 
panamaican said:
A "fair" life would see the government take everyone's kids shortly after birth. Raise them in a homogenous education facility and then release them into the world accordingly. The kids would never know who their birth parents were and the economic/social advantages that parents give their kids would be mitigated. Kids would succeed or fail solely on their individual merit since they would all be cycling through the same preparation.

Tangentially, I wonder what it would do the birth rate. The cost of raising your kids disappears so there's no economic limitation on how many you can have. But I would imagine that lots of women would probably not want to go through 9 months of pregnancy just to hand their baby off to the state.
Click to expand...

Seems unfair to parents who love their kids and want to spend lots of time with them. Grandparents too.

Maybe a more fair system would be to do what you suggest with orphans or people who are badly mistreated/abused by their families, making sure they have enough of an advantage to compete with people who have good homes?

To me social democracies seem pretty fair.

“Each person working according to their ability, taking only what they need” is sort of the “fairness principle” they used to espouse - of course it goes against human nature and breaks down under the details, but perhaps not a bad thing to strive for.
 
Last edited:
Aegon Spengler said:
Seems unfair to parents who love their kids and want to spend lots of time with them. Grandparents too.

Maybe a more fair system would be to do what you suggest with orphans or people who are badly mistreated/abuses by their families, making sure they have enough of an advantage to compete with people who have good homes?

To me social democracies seem pretty fair.

“Each person working according to their ability, taking only what they need” is sort of the “fairness principle” they used to espouse - of course it goes against human nature and breaks down under the details, but perhaps not a bad thing to strive for.
Click to expand...
It's not unfair to anyone. Everyone would be having the same experience and the kids would have fair starting points. As for your social democracy fairness, it's not any more or less fair than anything else. Some would say that it's not fair to limit what they can acquire to "what they need".

But I suppose that's the debate in these things -- what is actually "fair". I define it as meritocracy at the beginning of life. Your definition seems to apply after people have entered the working world.
 
There isn’t a single piece of external information in the universe that would entertain the idea that anything about our existence or reality is “fair”. Or that anything is based on such toddler like emotion.

It’s a man made concept to aid in the ugliness of our conundrum.

The subjective nature of the delusion is where it can become dangerous.
 
panamaican said:
It's not unfair to anyone. Everyone would be having the same experience and the kids would have fair starting points. As for your social democracy fairness, it's not any more or less fair than anything else. Some would say that it's not fair to limit what they can acquire to "what they need".

But I suppose that's the debate in these things -- what is actually "fair". I define it as meritocracy at the beginning of life. Your definition seems to apply after people have entered the working world.
Click to expand...

Sure, I suppose it's "fair" in a horrible way, just as everyone being turned to ash at the exact same time would be "fair" in the sense that everyone is having the same experience. It's awful though.

I guess I need to amend and say "fair in a good way".

I don't think meritocracy is necessarily "fair" either. You don't choose your genetics, even if you have the same starting point, and to make everyone everyone else's twin seems as dystopian as ripping children from their parents.

Natural Order said:
There isn’t a single piece of external information in the universe that would entertain the idea that anything about our existence or reality is “fair”. Or that anything is based on such toddler like emotion.

It’s a man made concept to aid in the ugliness of our conundrum.

The subjective nature of the delusion is where it can become dangerous.
Click to expand...

lol. Ok. When Theodore Roosevelt became president his campaign slogan was: "A deal that is fair - a deal that is square" I don't think he had "toddler like emotions." You're just a werido
 
Wrath of Foamy said:
Nothing is fair and nobody is equal to one another.

We are all different with different genetics and different circumstances.
Click to expand...


Truth. Nothing is going to be completely fair. Different people have different inclination and genetics.

Even if you had a uniform robotic society with equal "teachers", "mentors", etc, how could one create a curriculum that plays to everyone's inclinations perfectly?

The biggest laugh about politics that really rarely ever gets noticed or discussed, is the vast majority of people espouse their own political philosophy is generic theory, but in reality, the vast vast majority of folks' true philosophy is "opportunist." It's part of the brilliance of the squid games, it does such a wicked job of illustrating that even the most theoretically principled people will absolutely abandon their principles when push comes to shove, and often in such a situation, the most morally bankrupt folks come across as being superior because at least they are up front about being willing to fuck people over as opposed to others that backstab.

It's also why a bunch of people with little to no material resources in their youth will espouse a philosophy then that they will rarely stick to in the same way as they age.
 
panamaican said:
A "fair" life would see the government take everyone's kids shortly after birth. Raise them in a homogenous education facility and then release them into the world accordingly. The kids would never know who their birth parents were and the economic/social advantages that parents give their kids would be mitigated. Kids would succeed or fail solely on their individual merit since they would all be cycling through the same preparation.

Tangentially, I wonder what it would do the birth rate. The cost of raising your kids disappears so there's no economic limitation on how many you can have. But I would imagine that lots of women would probably not want to go through 9 months of pregnancy just to hand their baby off to the state.
Click to expand...
The profound permanent and unhealable psychological damage it would cause for children to be separated from their parents and raised by people who do not profoundly and deeply love them would be destructive to every single area of our lives.
 
Aegon Spengler said:
Sure, I suppose it's "fair" in a horrible way, just as everyone being turned to ash at the exact same time would be "fair" in the sense that everyone is having the same experience. It's awful though.

I guess I need to amend and say "fair in a good way".

I don't think meritocracy is necessarily "fair" either. You don't choose your genetics, even if you have the same starting point, and to make everyone everyone else's twin seems as dystopian as ripping children from their parents.
Click to expand...
Fair is always horrible. That's because fair removes the things that we all benefit from and take for granted. Good looking people wouldn't like a fair world where appearance was removed from the equation. Rich parents don't like a fair world where they couldn't use their success to help their kids. We all get some benefit and we all think our benefit falls within the definition of "fair".

We don't get to choose our genetics but we can all use our genetics in whatever way we see fit. That's fair. A stupid person reaps whatever they can from the world. But a stupid person with rich parents is going to reap outcomes they couldn't achieve without their parent's money. They haven't achieved a fair outcome, relative to their input.

But if you take 2 stupid people and let them figure out how to succeed without giving one of them an economic headstart, whatever outcome you get would be more fair than giving one of those stupid people $30 million in cash and the economic connections of a 3rd party, while the other stupid person starts with $10 and bad schooling.
 
terrapin said:
The profound permanent and unhealable psychological damage it would cause for children to be separated from their parents and raised by people who do not profoundly and deeply love them would be destructive to every single area of our lives.
Click to expand...
Yes. But it would also be fair. Although the children wouldn't know they were separated from their parents and there's no reason the system could be invested in providing a loving environment to all kids, rather than just some of them.
 
panamaican said:
Yes. But it would also be fair. Although the children wouldn't know they were separated from their parents and there's no reason the system could be invested in providing a loving environment to all kids, rather than just some of them.
Click to expand...
this is not how child development works man. there is a built in and intense love that unless harmed by other factors like mental illness, addiction abuse etc could NEVER be replaced by a hired stranger.



you are right in that it would be fair but only fair in that it would harm everyone equally.....
 
Last edited:
panamaican said:
A "fair" life would see the government take everyone's kids shortly after birth. Raise them in a homogenous education facility and then release them into the world accordingly. The kids would never know who their birth parents were and the economic/social advantages that parents give their kids would be mitigated. Kids would succeed or fail solely on their individual merit since they would all be cycling through the same preparation.

Tangentially, I wonder what it would do the birth rate. The cost of raising your kids disappears so there's no economic limitation on how many you can have. But I would imagine that lots of women would probably not want to go through 9 months of pregnancy just to hand their baby off to the state.
Click to expand...
That's hardcore marxism.
Beyond delusional and outright evil.
 
They look like this now

anBn


Glad I could help
 
Aegon Spengler said:
Sure, I suppose it's "fair" in a horrible way, just as everyone being turned to ash at the exact same time would be "fair" in the sense that everyone is having the same experience. It's awful though.

I guess I need to amend and say "fair in a good way".

I don't think meritocracy is necessarily "fair" either. You don't choose your genetics, even if you have the same starting point, and to make everyone everyone else's twin seems as dystopian as ripping children from their parents.



lol. Ok. When Theodore Roosevelt became president his campaign slogan was: "A deal that is fair - a deal that is square" I don't think he had "toddler like emotions." You're just a werido
Click to expand...
You’re just surface level.

Also lol @ thinking American presidents create fair life.
 
You guys still talking about a neurotic concept derived by man? Rofl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,430
Messages
56,646,514
Members
175,331
Latest member
psykro

Share this page

Back
Top