Equality or the majority rule is not fairness, and is practically an incompatible enemy of fairness. Lies are detrimental, however beautiful.
Topics
About: fairness
The table of contents of this article
- Starting Context
- Target Context
- Orientation
- Main Body
- 1: What Is Fairness? We Should Not Define It Rushed-ly.
- 2: Does Fairness Even Matter in an Environment Already Egregiously Unfair, Like the Bias Planet?
- 3: These Are Not Any Fairness
- 4: Some Necessary Conditions for Fairness
Starting Context
- The reader knows the background of this site.
Target Context
- The reader will understand that some concepts that tend to be connected to fairness by many Earthians are not only not fairness at all but also usually main culprits behind unfairness, and will have a more sensible (if not definite) concept of fairness.
Orientation
There are some articles on truthfulness (here and here).
There is an article on harmful rhetoric.
There is an article on the validity of the majority rule.
Main Body
Stage DirectionHere is Special-Student-7 in a room in an old rather isolated house surrounded by some mountains in Japan.
1: What Is Fairness? We Should Not Define It Rushed-ly.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
We should begin at the beginning.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
That is . . . logical.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
"beginning" should mean the definition of fairness.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Well, "definition" may not be the right term here.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
What do you mean?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
We are not creating a new concept by a definition; we need to grasp the concept of fairness that is already out there.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I wonder whether a concept can be out there without being defined.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Do you? But if there is no concept without being defined, you can and cannot help but just define a concept arbitrarily, because there is nothing your definition should or can conform to, but why should I be bothered with your arbitrary definition?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Why? . . . Because you are a compassionate person.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
. . . I find it futile to talk to anyone who makes such an insult.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Anyway, I understand that we are not creating an arbitrary, new concept; I am saying that we should make a definition that exactly matches the concept out there.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
And I am saying that we cannot.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Can we not? Well . . .
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Then try it.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Fairness is . . . 'being not unfair'.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Ah, that may seem meaningless, but actually contains an important point: a concept may be more conveniently identified as the complement of another concept.
But of course, you have to identify the another concept first.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Unfairness is . . . 'being not fair'.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
That is certainly meaningless, you know.
Stage Direction
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer begins to search for something.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
. . . What are you doing?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
There should be a Biasian dictionary around here. . . .
Stage Direction
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer finds a copy of 'Oxford ADVANCED LEARNER'S Dictionary'.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Ah, here it is. . . . This says that fairness is "the quality of treating people equally or in a way that is reasonable".
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
And do you agree with that?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Actually, I totally disagrees with the first part; as for the second part, what is "reasonable" by the way?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
What does your dictionary say?
Stage Direction
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer searches for the word in the dictionary.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
It says "fair, practical and sensible" as the first meaning.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
So, we are supposed to already know what "fair" is.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
You know, it is difficult to define an atomic concept like fairness: the concept cannot help but be defined with some other concepts, which have to be defined first, but with what concepts? . . . What we usually see are just cyclic rewordings.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
I know; and in many cases, such rewordings are not just meaningless but are harmfully inaccurate, because they are done with some resembling concepts, but the resembling concepts just resemble, not equal, the target concept (of course, because otherwise, we should have needed only the single target concept, not such multiple resembling concepts).
That is the reason why I say that you should not assume that you can define a concept like fairness, at least succinctly.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Ah, I understand the harm of arguments like "Let's define 'fairness' as ~. According to the definition, ~". Such arguments cannot help but go awry because that "fairness" is not the fairness we are concerned with.
We should not assume that we can succinctly define fairness in a single sentence, in a single paragraph, or even in a single chapter and claim "This is exactly fairness!".
Instead, we should try to approach the concept gradually, going nearer and nearer, by examining what are not fairness and what are necessary conditions for fairness. . . . It will be like putting points on a pointiliste picture, in a way.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
That seems a sound strategy.
2: Does Fairness Even Matter in an Environment Already Egregiously Unfair, Like the Bias Planet?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But does fairness really even matter when we are in an environment like The Bias Planet?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
What do you mean by "an environment like The Bias Planet"? An environment in which there is air? An environment in which there is gravity? An environment in which there are convenience stores?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
An environment that abounds with egregiously unfair people.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
How does that matter? You can be fair by yourself.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But the opponent is kicking, butting, and flourishing a knife in the boxing match.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
So what? You can be fair by yourself.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But I would be certainly stabbed to death!
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Do not worry: you are going to die anyway.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Huh?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Look, you will die sooner or later, and surviving a little longer by kicking around does not seem worth to me.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
. . . But I may have a family to protect.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
But you do not have any family to protect.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But I could have had, or might have in future.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
You are pathetic, but have raised an important issue nevertheless: dragging in family is one of the most popular and most malignant alibi among Earthians: "I'm not doing this for myself; I have to do this for my family!". . . . If you think that you can justifiably sacrifice someone for your family, you have to remember that that someone is a son or daughter of a mother and may be the father or mother of a baby.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
So, I am going to be stabbed to death . . .
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
It is important that you mind your own business. What others do are not your business, ultimately speaking, and you do not need to worry about whatever they do.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
The knife is sinking into my abdomen, and it is not my business?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Do not worry; it is not your fault; you do not need to brood on what is not your fault.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But the opponent is evil! He is flourishing a knife! Why shouldn't I protect myself from the evil one?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
I am not saying that you should not protect yourself; I am saying that you are not warranted to begin to flourish a knife, just because the opponent is doing so.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But flourishing a knife is the only way to protect myself.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Note that flourishing a knife is a metaphor of doing unfair things here; if your question is whether the opponent's doing unfair things justify your doing unfair things, my answer is an absolute NO.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But is there not something I can do?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
"something" to do what?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
To make the evil one regret it. You know, I really do not mind being stabbed than mind letting the evil one smirking to himself.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Forget it: it is his face; you cannot dictate what shape his face should take.
All you need to be peacefully satisfied is to have clean hands.
3: These Are Not Any Fairness
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
We would like to clarify what are not fairness first, because I have some things I am quite certain about.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
OK.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
While the Biasian dictionary mentions "treating people equally", I strongly disagree with that notion, which seems quite popular on The Bias Planet.
Is 'treating a conscientious person and an evil person equally' fairness? . . . I think that that is exactly opposite to fairness.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Well, what Earthians mean by "treating people equally" is quite ambiguous, actually.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
What do you mean? "treating equally" should be nothing but 'treating equally'; for example, if an evil person is regarded as an evil person, also a conscientious person has to be regarded as an evil person, and if the evil person is lashed, also the conscientious person has to be lashed. . . . What kind of fairness is that, by the way?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
They say of a concept called "equality under the law", which may mean only that 'the law is applied equally to everybody'.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
It is kids' stuff! They create an unequal law and apply the unequal law equally to everyone, boasting "We are treating people equally!". . . . They are just sneaking unequality into the law, a despicable deception.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
. . . Or the concept may mean also that 'the law itself has to treat people equally'.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Then, the law has to lash the conscientious person, after all.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Their logic seems to be "The law doesn't predetermined-ly ill-treat any specific person, but if someone opts to do an evil deed, he or she will be lashed.".
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
That is really a dirty deception: the law is very predetermined-ly ill-treating people who are the owners of the idea that such a so-called "evil" deed is a good act.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Yes, you can say so; their major premise seems to be that they know what are evil, which, I am sure, is not the case.
It is really nonsense to say "the law treats people equally" in fact, because the primal role of any law is to differentiate people to be punished from people not so; the real issue is whether the differentiation is done with justice; for example, it should not be based on gender.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
The ideal of equality is fundamentally off the mark.
As for gender equality, the problem is that some women are being unfairly treated equally. I mean, some women are very talented, but are being treated equally with untalented women just because they are women, which is the problem. When treating equally is the problem, they are betting double on equality . . .
The problem of racial discrimination is in treating all the persons of a race equally badly just because they are of the race; I have to point out that there are certainly some deplorable persons as well as some admirable persons in the race (as in any other race), who should be treated accordingly.
No. Individuals are not equal, so they should not be treated equally.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Well, it will be utterly absurd to assume that individuals are really equal: obviously, they have different heights, different weights, different physical strengths, different intelligence quotients, etc.. Their theory seems to be assuming that individuals are somehow equal.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
"somehow"? Whathow?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
I am not sure.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Please do not bother to mention any bullshit like "Everyone should have a compensating merit.", which is completely against the statistical laws: as individuals are different as to such rather conspicuous attributes like height, they are different as to less conspicuous attributes like honesty, diligence, and of course, fairness; as low intelligence does not automatically mean high honesty, there are someone who is high in both and someone who is low in both; of course, I gladly admit that someone is extremely honest such that his honesty compensates his extremely low intelligence very well, but you cannot say that every low-intelligence person is so.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Their theory seems to be assuming that individuals are equal in value, nevertheless.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
So, a honest person and a dishonest person are equal in value, which should logically mean that being honest does not elevate the person's value a bit . . ., a disgusting world.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
You should not forget that nobody is completely honest or dishonest.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I have not forgotten that actually, thank you; I am just saying that at least there are relatively honest persons and relatively dishonest persons, and that a claim like "All are equal just because nobody is completely honest or dishonest." is an egregious distortion that sanctifies being very dishonest.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
You also should not forget that nobody necessarily continues to be very dishonest.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I am just saying that people who are very dishonest right now should be treated as such for now; if they change in future, of course, the treatment will have to be changed.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Fair enough.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
The prevalence of "All are equal." on the Bias planet is really a manifestation of lack of seriousness for fairness; if they really tried to be fair enough, they would immediately realize that they were not able to operate by such a principle.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
That seems the case.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
On the other hand, "the majority rule" is definitely not fairness. In fact, "the majority rule" is a type of "the popularity rule", which is the most nurtural hotbed of unfairness.
Letting the popularity decide what is right is like letting the most popular answer in a test be the correct answer, which is simply absurd. That is absurd because usually only a small percentage of the testees are excellent and can give the correct answer, which is the reason why the results of the test usually form a bell curve. It is a statistical fact.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Whether they are "Letting the popularity decide what is right" is uncertain; maybe they value popularity just because popularity means big sales.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Ah, so, they do not care what is right, and force me to conform to what is not right because the majority can enjoy big sales, a dismal world.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Of course, it is foolish to assume that popularity means any rightness; the ground of the popularity rule will be "If they like something, let them have it, whether it is right or wrong.".
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
There must be a clear distinction between majority decisions and unanimous decisions: if it is a unanimous decision, it is fine: let all have the wrong thing as they like, but if it is a majority decision, why do the majority have the right to enforce the wrong thing to the minority?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
A usual question to you will be "Then, what do you propose instead of the majority rule?".
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I have to point out that what is unfair does not become fair just because there is no alternative. I want to say "Please please, at least, stop glorifying such a despicable rule!".
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
A usual objection to you will be "If there is no alternative, we are doing the right thing!".
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
No, they are not doing the right thing; they are abusing the majority rule: that something is inevitable does not mean that they can flourish it happily. As the majority rule is not any fair, it should be employed only when it is absolutely inevitable, which is my point.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
The issue is "when is it absolutely inevitable?".
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I can cite 2 prevalent types of abuse.
1) needlessly forcing a majority-way on the minority.
2) the majority does not show any consistent hypothesis.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
When you say "needlessly" . . .
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Why is not each person let have the freedom to do it in his or her way? I do not see any reason; the majority does not show any reason; the majority just egotistically want to force their way on the minority. Note that the minority is not trying to force anything on the majority.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
You mean that there are such cases.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Yes, such cases abound very much. What to be asked before any majority vote is "Is this vote really necessary? Why don't we let each one have the freedom?".
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
And about "2)"?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Any majority vote is justifiable only when the opposing sides have presented their own consistent hypotheses, so, not any of the hypotheses can be theoretically chosen; any inconsistent one is something just to be retracted, not to be on any vote.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
I certainly agree, but such an argument saddening-ly does not bring any improvement, because, you know, the majority have power and can do and will most probably do whatever they want, justifiable or not.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I know, and I am not really expecting any better from the majority; I just want to express a strong objection to the glorification of the majority rule.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
More saddening-ly, power claims also glory.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I know . . .
4: Some Necessary Conditions for Fairness
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I cannot say like "Fairness is exactly this.", but can think of some necessary conditions for fairness.
Being truthful is the 1st necessary condition for fairness.
That is because regarding a person as he or she truly is not is nothing but unfairness, for example regarding a honest person as a liar or regarding a liar as a honest person, and in order to correctly judge the honesty of the person, inevitably, facts have to be evaluated truthfully, because if a truth the honest person is claiming is regarded to be false, the honest person is automatically regarded to be a liar.
Any assumption like "Muslims are terrorists" is unfair only because it is untruthful (as an unmovable fact, there are many non-terrorist Muslims); if it were truthful, it would be fine to assume so.
In addition to such ugly lies, also beautiful lies are not OK, I must add. I mean, beautiful lies like "All are equal.".
"All are equal." means that the virtue of any honest person is not being deservedly appreciated, and the suffering caused by any bully is not duly compensated for.
If all were equal, Hitler and Gandhi would be equal, and there would be no reason why a boy should not aspire to be a next Hitler.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
A typical excuse would be that Hitler was an exception.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Then, black people could be exceptions; women could be exceptions; foot fetishists could be exceptions.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Yes, that is how they have continued to unscrupulously exerted discrimination under the banner of "All are equal.".
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Actually, everybody is an exception, more or less.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
That is true.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Then, they should honestly say "All are equal, except all.".
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
That is a more correct expression.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Typically, an unfairness is begotten by you because you evaluate an individual by a rough category whose criteria the individual happens to satisfy. Muslims, women, foot fetishists are rough categories, and "All" is the roughest of categories.
The 1st guiding principle for fairness has to be "Evaluate each individual individually.", and evaluation has to be done truthfully.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Is that the 2nd necessary condition?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
That is rather an inevitable corollary of the 1st necessary condition: if you try to be truthful, you will not be able to judge any individual by any rough category, because that is not truthful.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
I see.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
The 2nd necessary condition is making unboundedly consistent explanation for whatever one claims.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
I am not certain about its independence from the 1st necessary condition.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
It is not independent from the 1st necessary condition in that the 1st necessary condition is a prerequisite for it, but it is not included in the 1st necessary condition at least.
That is because someone may insist "I am truthful, but won't make any explanation about it!"; the 2nd necessary condition is saying that you are not allowed to insist to be truthful without making a due explanation even if you are really truthful.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
You mean, as far as one claims something, one owes an explanation.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I have to say "consistent explanation", because many people try to get away with making inconsistent explanations, and I have to say especially "unboundedly consistent explanation", because many people try to be consistent just by shutting out inconvenient facts from their explanations, or their consciousness even. . . . With inconvenient facts arbitrarily shut out, any absurd thing can be explained consistently.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
A prevalent practice on The Bias Planet.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Some people say that everybody is entitled to have his or her opinion, but I say that having an opinion privately aside, he or she is entitled to claim the opinion publicly or act publicly based on the opinion only if he or she makes a due explanation.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
So, having an opinion privately and acting privately based on an opinion do not owe any explanation . . .
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Everybody is entitled to do whatever in his or her secluded room without influencing the outer world in any way, which is called privacy.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
And the 3rd necessary condition?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Well, may I raise 'being symmetric'?
I mean, a principle like "I am entitled to survive, but you are not!" is not allowed, because it is not symmetric. Why are only you so asymmetrically privileged?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Well, symmetricalness is somehow delicate: "I" may be privileged so based on a good reason, for example "I" may be a worthy person. You do not deny the legitimacy of such a reason as someone who objects to "equality", do you?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I do not, indeed. Indeed, it depends on the formalization. "I am privileged because I am I!" does not work, because somebody else is also "I" for him or her. "I am privileged because I am worthy!" is good in fact, only if "I" am really so worthy and the others who are equally worthy are granted the equal privilege. . . . In many case, I have to point out, "I" am not particularly so worthy and will not admit the privilege to the others who are worthy as you are or worthier than you are.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
So, being symmetric is different from "treating all equally".
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
It is very different. Being symmetric is 'If a person should be privileged because of his or her worthiness, everybody who is equally worthy has to be equally privileged.', not "Everybody has to be equally privileged however deplorable he or she is.".
. . . . . .
How about being non-arbitrary as the 4th necessary condition?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Suddenly a negative expression?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
A positive alternative expression may be 'being well-reasoned', but using the concept, 'arbitrary', seems to clear the point..
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
What is the point?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
A principle like "I don't claim that white people are superior, but white people should have privileges anyway." is not particularly untruthful, is not particularly contradictory, and is not particularly asymmetric, but it should not be allowed.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Well, that claim is not particularly untruthful, because he or she did not claim "white people are superior", which is not true, because at least some white people are inferior than some colored people; that claim is not particularly contradictory, because it is contradictory with what?; that claim is not particularly asymmetric, because our symmetricalness is not "being indiscriminately equal", so, treating people differently based on an explicit rule is not particularly asymmetric, if the rule is applied rigidly.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But that claim is arbitrary: why privileges for white people, instead of vice versa?
Usually, people resort to the false claim, "white people are superior", in order to rationalize their privileges, but with the falseness indicated, they could turn to arbitrariness, "Whether we are superior or not, we should have privileges!", which has to be prevented.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
But how about lottery? Lotteries are bad all together, because they are arbitrary?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
1st, if there is a good reason that the prize should go to someone, you should not resort to lottery.
2nd, if not, lottery is rather the opposite of being arbitrary, because your picking your friend as the winner is more arbitrary than a wheel's picking the winner without any intention, in the arbitrariness I mean.
'arbitrary' may be somehow misleading, but I mean willful choice by it, rather than complete randomness.
You know, when the white supremacist picked up white people, obviously, he or she did not so randomly.
. . .
Well, I thought of 'respect freedom the farthest' as the 5th necessary condition, but that seems to be included in the 4th necessary condition.
I mean, restricting freedom needlessly is bad because it is an arbitrary restriction.
You know, freedom is with restriction: you are not free to be unfair.
It is that freedom should not be restricted arbitrarily.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
So, what is the 5th necessary condition?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Well, I will rather wrap it up for now.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Huh? Do you want to go to pee?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Not . . . only that. I do not want to cursorily raise anything that is not so definitely necessary.
They are not enough, of course, but as has been said earlier, we are talking about necessary conditions, not sufficient conditions.
