|
| Thread: Fair - unfair... what's that? | |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted October 30, 2010 11:51 AM |
|
|
Fair - unfair... what's that?
It seems the question has been asked what fair and unfair actually means.
This question might warrant its own topic, and I'll start it with a story to illustrate the problem.
A hundred years ago a luxury liner sinks after an engine explosion, and a couple of survivors manage to reach an island with water, but no food at all.
Having overcome the initial shock, some start to complain about the unfairness of it, being stranded here and all.
"A couple of days ago, most people would have complained about how unfair it was, that we lucky few can actually afford the cruise and most can't", one answers.
"And what about those who died when the engine exploded? They are already dead, isn't THAT unfair as well?"
"Why did the boat sink, anyway?", another person asks. "Was it an accident? How unfair is THAT, then... must be a one in a billion chance."
"It was an assassination", says another. "I think, a bomb was planted, supposed to kill some prince or another who was on board. Most unfair to not simply shoot him and be done with it, but explode the whole ship."
After checking the situation, it's clear that they have to find something to eat, otherwise they will starve to death. When searching the little island yields nothing, someone makes a suggestion: "It could be weeks, if not months, until we are found. The only food source are we - our only chance is to live off of ourselves. We could randomly draw straws, short losing, so we could eat the loser. I think, that would be fair."
Someone else disagrees. "It's not. Look at us. We have children here, who weigh not much, and on the other hand there are a few really weighty ones. If a child draws the straw, it's not much use for us - we'd have to draw another straw soon. Plus, the weighty ones eat more."
"That we can change", another one says. "I think, it would be fair to hand out minimum rations to everyone. Minimum ration would be what was required just to survive." "But the bigger ones will need more", says one. "No, they will simply lose weight and use their body fat. Minimum rations for everyone."
"Still", someone else says, "wouldn't it be fair if we just kill the biggest guy - and the next one and so on - because that way we are guaranteed to kill as few people as possible until we are rescued."
"But that's completely unfair to me", the biggest guy complains because that wouldn't give me no survival chance at all, and all that just because I'm the biggest guy. I suggest another method. First we determine our average weight. Everyone below average weight doesn't draw - their death would be of too little use. Everyone above average draws, and the biggest ones get an additional handicap. Let's say we put a stone into a hat for those slightly above average, two stones for the more than slightly above and three for the really big ones. That way at least everyone has a chance to survive."
That gives everyone a lot to think about, then someone - a rather big guy - says: "But what if we just wait, until the first one starves to death - we could eat that person then." "But the first to die will be the smallest with the fewest bodily reserves", a woman says, "that would be unfair to them. And besides, there wouldn't be much to eat left, so that's no good."
After some debating the group agrees to just wait a safe time span of three days and discuss again.
Three days later they meet again. The majority is in favor of sacrificing one with the method the biggest of them suggested: all biggies with additional handicaps for additional weight draw. Before the draw takes place, however, it is dicussed whether this is fair to the minority against it. The minority asks this: "Those who are against it, could be simply left out of it; one group can leave things their natural course, while the others may go ahead."
"But that will change average weight and odds", someone says.
"Yes, exactly. Basically, the biggest ones will live off of their bodily reserves. That will lessen average weight of the rest. They will determine a victim which we won't have any part in."
However, the majority insists, fair or not, if necessary by using force. A victim is determined. At that stage, someone else discovers a dead body that has been swept ashore, a victim of the explosion that got stranded - edible.
While this saves the intended victim, another discussion arises: "When we have eaten the body, and it's time to kill one of us for real - does the draw stand or do we draw anew?"
"Why would we draw anew?", someone asks. "Things have been determined. Why change it?"
"Because that dead body was like a pardon for the guy - why would he get the reprieve living with this burden another couple of days. That would be somewhat unfair to him. Sure, he had the unlucky draw - but then he got spared. I think, there should be a new draw, when it is time for it."
At this point I leave it to you. Fair - unfair, what do you think? What is the nature of fairness and unfairness?
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 01:53 PM |
|
|
My real point the whole time in the other thread is that fairness does not actually exist and sadly can not.
Thus there is no point worrying about what is fair.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 04:44 PM |
|
|
|
Still, what IS "fair", if it can't exist. How would it be defined? Fair is often used in connection with games. Is a fair game impossible? If not, fairness exists.
|
|
memonster
Adventuring Hero
once seen cannot be unseed
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 06:12 PM |
|
|
speaking of fair games, even if such a thing is possible i think it might be simply boring. Lets divide it into a few points:
1.In a fair game everyone would have to have an equal start.
The first one is more or less true for most cases but rearly it is 100% true. Lets have a strategy game for example: one faction can expand very fast becouse it can create a lot of light vehicles, while the other faction wich relies on heavy vehicles cant produce them as fast , and thus can control a far smaller surface of the battlefield. Conclusion: even if those factions are balanced it clearly isn't fair that the heavy vehicle factory has much less controll of the battlefield and usually that means it cant gather resources as fast.
2.In a fair game everyone would have to have identical abilities/powers/perks or however you want to call it.
While it looks fair at first i might not be depending on the game mechanics. In such a situation the one who lands the first strike is the one who will win first giving no room for recovery. This assumption may not hold true in first person shooter or third person shooter, but since were assuming the rules are supposed to be 100% im leaving this for later discussion. Such a rule kills the idea of variety, since everyone can use the same attacks there is no real point in creating different classes, races or items.
So far adding fairness to the games, lovers the fun factor of the game. While from what i posted is looks like fair games aren't fun , i can remember some games that do give players two identical characters with no option to improve them, namely "Ragdoll Masters"
In this game you just ram two stickmen into each other , while plain and fair its still lots of fun.
For other aspects of fairness, i wouldnt dig in it too deep since everone has their own idea of what is fair and what isn't. for example some people belive its fair outnumber your opponents in a fight (SIDENOTE: and when i and my wanted to back down they said we had no honour coz were not willing to fight 10 "gorillaz", luckly we just walked away without any problems). Besides its not like life itself is fair, even if were saying that everyone is even, there will always be someone who is "more even" than others
____________
Me, myself... rather than I and then... myself and then me... Me... ME ...MEEEAAAAAAAH
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 08:04 PM |
|
|
|
But what does "fair" mean exactly?
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 08:26 PM |
|
|
interesting question, but hard to argue and not really to solve probably. Like with all abstrat things - people almost never see these things 100% the same.
To me, fairness depends on the situation.
One problem why fairness can't ecist in near future is for me that thigns aren't fair now and you still can't really just say it would be fair to be unfair to the former favoured in my eyes. Like saying: "The rich had more luck until now, so let them give us their money, cause life has been unfair to us." I think, an easier goal, which is far better reachable, and may come close to fairness for the momentary situation and may lead to mroe fairness in future, is balance.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 11:05 PM |
|
|
|
fair is unfair as beauty is ugliness. it's just the same thing at various degrees and it depends on the point of view.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 31, 2010 12:43 AM |
|
|
It is not fair to kill anyone to eat them. That is immoral.
If you have been teated in a moral manner you have been treated fairly. If not, you have been treated unfairly.
An example of an unfair practice is giving bonus points on employment tests/college entrance exams to members of certain races or to a specific gender. In that case the race/gender that does not get the bonus points is deliberately put at a disadvantage. That is not fair.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted October 31, 2010 12:45 AM |
|
|
If you want the dictionary explanation it's having equal chances.
But as we've seen, almost no one here agrees about that. 
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2010 02:47 AM |
|
|
"Fair" has multiple meanings, some of which are pretty easy to define. However most often, especially in the social or political context, it's just a mater of opinion. Asking for a definition of fair is like asking for a definition of good music.
Fair is one of those words that is often used as a political tool. Regardless of how you define it, "fair" is considered by most people to be something good. So if you can tag any political agenda with the word "fair", by default anyone who is against that agenda would be labeled "unfair" with the implication of being "bad".
The word can be very powerful, especially in the media. You have terms like "fair trade", "fair housing", "fair and balanced", "fair labor", fair market", etc. All of those uses are a form of manipulation. It's a form of manipulation because who would want to be unfair? It may be slight, it may be subtle, but there is a tendency of people to think "yea I want to be fair".
The word doesn't have to have any real meaning when just the appearance of it carries a certain connection to a population who agrees that fairness is a good thing. You could do a similar thing by taking a political party and renaming it the "Good Party".
In the US, with issues that are voted on directly by the public, it used to be you could get some idea of what it's about just by looking at who sponsored it and who supports it. But that changed. Just about every time an issue is put on the ballot, a new group is created to sponsor and support it. It would be a group that you've never heard of but it would have a name like "Citizens For Fair Spending". Well well well, now fair spending has to be a good thing, right? Never mind that it's just a name and you have no idea what the group is about, fair spending must be a good thing.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted October 31, 2010 03:02 AM |
|
|
You are correct my friend Bibanik.
Fairness does have multiple meanings to everyone's eyes.
Which also means Shyranistoraus is right as well.
It is hard to be fair & right down the middle when people have their own definition on what is fair.
Of course fairness can be agreed on, but not everyone will always agree.
As long as we are human & we have different thoughts, then there will never be fairness right down the middle.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 03, 2010 08:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It is not fair to kill anyone to eat them. That is immoral.
Hmhm, because in such a situation in which your basic survival is at stake, everybody will cling to their moral codes.
To be fair, the fairest thing would be to kill and eat the religious folks first, and proceed with the dumbest untill the smartest are left alive.
Because if some should survive the ordeal, it should be the smartest and kindest, to ensure the best of humanity survives rather than the lowest.
Not like the lowest are going to agree with that though... *peers at Elodin*
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 12:56 AM |
|
|
|
are you sure elodin is edible?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 05:34 PM |
|
|
Judging by the policies that are advocated by people who use the word "fair", "fair" means "unfair".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
