EPT
A Fair World
| Blogs > Barrin |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
ieatkids5
United States4628 Posts
imo its better to think about that scenario in terms of maximizing happiness/contentness/ whatever you wanna call it. if i was stranded on the island and found the food, i would decide to share it by figuring out which option will bring me the most content. if by staying alive and letting the other guy die gives me... lets say a 7/10 contentness factor, and if by sharing my food and letting myself live shorter gives me 5/10, then of course i will not share. however, another person in the same situation might be more content with sharing his food, because his guilt of not sharing the food will hurt more than living a bit longer. | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
| ||
|
deth
Australia1757 Posts
"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." -- Marcus to Franklin in Babylon 5:"A Late Delivery from Avalon" And yeah, fair or unfair is subjective, and your logic is pretty flawed, but I enjoyed your post and I hope you keep up these rambling tangential posts  | ||
|
Tozar
United States245 Posts
| ||
|
Ghin
United States2391 Posts
| ||
|
eLiE
Canada1039 Posts
| ||
|
Saturnize
United States2473 Posts
Basically you're a communist? | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
| ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On June 16 2010 13:06 seppolevne wrote: But if the second guy knows that by 'starving' himself, good things will come of it, then he is not doing anything 'good' at all. He is simply serving himself. noone ever does anything that is 100% selfless. i want to see that person. | ||
Manifesto7
Osaka27155 Posts
| ||
|
raiame
United States421 Posts
| ||
|
Zerksys
United States569 Posts
| ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
| ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
Fair is as ill-defined a word as "good" or "right" - it means whatever you think is fair. There is no really objective definition of fair. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what definition you pick - someone is going to have a problem with it, and plenty of people will be able to generate hypothetical situations in which your definition hopelessly underperforms. Far better, imo, to justify things on the basis of empirical data, without reference at all to subjective nonsense. You can get everything that needs to be justified justified fine, if you work at it. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Gustav_Wind
United States646 Posts
On June 19 2010 00:00 Barrin wrote: In a perfectly fair world, anyone who would have a problem with this result, would indeed not have a problem, because that wouldn't be fair. Your logic is wonderful in an unfair world though. What? this part contradicts what you propose as a "perfectly fair world": I never said "fair" can be defined. I said "a certain measure" of it could be defined. I was really working with an idea of AVERAGES. Take what everyone in the entire world thinks of as "fair" (which is of course, a hopeless feat, but not impossible) and then take the "averages". Your result would be finite and unambiguous. If you averaged everybody's ideas of what's fair, then there would be lots of people who disagree with the result, because it's an AVERAGE. And you can't wave this away with your trick of saying "that wouldn't be fair" because it is fair with how you defined it, that being an AVERAGE. As for the simple example in the OP, you seem to consider the "right" thing to do the one that is 100% not beneficial to you, and 100% benefits the other person. Then you go on to say that if we were rewarded for doing things like that the world would be awesome. So, essentially you are saying that"If we were compensated for choices that don't benefit ourselves, so that the outcome is beneficial to ourselves, the that would be awesome." Another way of putting it would be "If we never had to choose between our happiness and someone else's happiness, because we could always have both, then the world would be a better place". And I can't disagree with these claims. However, I think it's pretty clear that this is nonsensical/tautological... | ||
|
ImSkeptical
Australia51 Posts
I've never been in a life and death situation, and hope i never will. But notice how when we turn to these extreme situations, we reach for the definition of terms, we find conclusions awkard and ambiguous. Personally, I think this is because discussion around such examples don't reflect what we face in day to day life. Any exploration would simply be out of intelectual entertainment. The guys signature on the other hand, can be argued against on much simpler grounds. It varies from person to person, so it would be worse for some better for others. So its question one would respond to on a personal basis. It not somthing that has a real yes or no answer, as it depends on specifics. | ||
| ||
