2ndRateMind

I will answer, in due course. But tomorrow I am away for the week, for the Christmas festivities. And so, I beg your indulgence until I return. Best wishes, 2RM

Just popped by, to see how you're all doing. So I thought I would respond to this: If there is a need, isn't it better (fairer) that everyone should contribute to meeting it, and so reduce each individual burden to the minimum, than that only those whose consciences are aroused by that need are forced to bear the burden alone? And, I still do not see why a reasonably balanced, justly inclined, relatively well-intentioned individual should not want to contribute to the succour of the poor. And if s(he) can do that, secure in the knowledge that their contribution is replicated by all, proportionately according to the extent of each individual's means, and that the amount they contribute is therefore the minimum necessary, why should that not be 'A Good Thing'? Now, I really am headed for bed. Sweet dreams, all. 2RM.

I'm not going to get into a debate on semantics. I will just say that you and I probably have different ideas concerning what is just and fair, and our ideas are probably different again to those of God, who is perfectly, infinitely just and fair. And so I trust in that, and have no existential anxieties, for either of us, at all. Best wishes, and good night until tomorrow, 2RM.

So do I. The global eradication of absolute poverty. After that, climate change, species extinction, weapons proliferation, and then other, more secondary, objectives. As for heaven and hell, I'm more than happy for God to dispose of my soul as God sees fit. Either way, according to what is just and fair. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, how does that differ from any other stage of life's pilgrim journey? But, at least God gave us all a moral compass. Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, in a sense, the underlying theme of this thread has been all about fairness. And I have not been reticent in my opinions. So, you can imply a good deal about what I think from what I have said. Do I think others might have less developed theories of fairness? Yes I do. Do I think others might have more developed theories of fairness? Yes I do. Do I hope both to teach and to learn by participating here? Indeed so. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. I think there are some truths we can know directly, such as the distance from the earth to the sun. But there are some truths we can only know indirectly, by crossing off a list of candidates to the truth as and when we find them wanting. As someone once said of the Church of England: 'It will always do the right thing, but only once it has exhausted every other possibility!' And I think the Ideals, perfect truth, perfect righteousness, perfect goodness, etc, and, yes, perfect justice and perfect fairness, all fall into this category. So, I have been so wrong about fairness even within my short life, I would prefer not even to attempt to define it for anyone else, just talk around the topic, and let others form their own opinions as they see fit. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, I don't see, as you probably don't, how hanging a murderer, for example, rights the wrong. Yet, many would claim that to be 'justice'. And/or 'fair'. Where, in your opinion, might their mistake lie? Is that an a priori conclusion, based on reason, or an a posteriori observation, based on experience, as you seem to imply? Either way, seems to me, it does not preclude social progress towards the ideals of fairness and justice, and that is really all I ask for. Best wishes, 2RM.

What makes you think I'm not? And what makes you think I want to take away your agency? On the contrary, I would advocate it's expression, to the fullest extent of your compassion. Best wishes, 2RM.

You are welcome to elaborate on this theme, should you wish to do so. For my part, I'm inclined to the view that if justice were not fair, it would not be justice, and if fairness was not just, it would not be fairness. Best wishes, 2RM.

Ummm. Actually, seeing as you ask, I believe God is ultimate, infinite justice, and therefore ultimate, infinite fairness. But I think it the case that He has left it to us to implement that justice and fairness in this mortal realm, to give us something meaningful to do with our lives, and by which we might develop our virtues and character, in service to, and in collaboration with, others. Best wishes, 2RM.

That's not an easy thing to do. Just as defining beauty is not easy. But I think we recognise their absence when they are not present. I would want to throw this challenge out to the entire forum, to try to define 'fairness'. Best wishes, 2RM.

Do you think, then, that life should be unfair? Best wishes, 2RM.

Agreed. But do you not think God gave us our sense of justice for a reason? To make life for each other, if not completely fair, then at least a tad more fair? Best wishes, 2RM.

Indeed. I find I learn most from those who disagree with me. Especially if they can justify their disagreements, rather than just pour out scorn and insults. After all, I already know what those who agree with me have to say. And mistakes are rarely discovered in a mutual admiration society. Best wishes, 2RM.

Oh, all right then, seeing as how recalcitrant you are, and how reluctant to engage with the more fundamental points I am making, just as the finishing line should be the same distance away for all sprinters, so, too, should be the height of the basket be for all players. Now, can we dispense with the trivia, and proceed to the substance? Best wishes, 2RM.

It may not be what you asked, but it was nevertheless an answer relevant to your question and the theme of the thread. If you do not like the answer I gave, so be it. Best wishes, 2RM.

Then let me provide a clue. If I am an African peasant, scratching around for $2 per day, in what way do my children have 'equality of opportunity' with the offspring of a Western billionaire? Best wishes, 2RM.

No. Not at all. I think we were discussing wars for gain and treasure, and the practice of ethnic cleansing, and the implementation of genocidal policies. In such cases, it should be quite obvious that the motive is not social justice, even if that idea is invoked to justify such crimes, but to perpetuate social injustices. Uh huh. In my experience, people who disparage 'equality of outcome' generally do so because they champion 'equality of opportunity'. But, I think, you cannot have genuine equality of opportunity in generation G without some degree, at least, of equality of outcome in generation G minus 1. et cetera. If the race is to be fair, it helps if everyone starts out the same distance from the finishing line. But even this is not what I advocate. I just want no one malnourished and in absolute poverty; no one dying of hunger; no one so poor they and their families starve. Is that really so hard to understand? Best wishes, 2RM.

That's OK. It seems I need to revisit some of the points I have made earlier in the thread. But, it's getting late now, here, and I propose to summarise my thinking on this for you tomorrow. Best wishes to you, and good night to you all. 2RM.

I can't see in this, a reason to forego democratically elected representatives or the expressed preference of the people. I can see, however, a reason to improve the quality of public discourse and debate. Best wishes, 2RM.

Seems like you are providing a litany of the evils of the world, to me. I make no apologies for extrapolating this list to cover all such evils. It occurs to me to ask; which evils would you exclude from your list? And why? And If I am 'magnificently ignoring' your point, it is not deliberately, only that I have possibly not understood what your point actually is. Is the access of the rich to the law to be understood as equivalent to the access of the poor to the law? And if the poor were, by some legislation, to be allowed the same budget as the rich for legal representation, would you then complain that that is not 'equal standing under the law', because the poor were getting more support than the rich? Best wishes, 2RM.

I really do not think you rationally can, or should reasonably try, to blame all the evils of the world on the justifiable and entirely laudable desire for humanity to achieve 'social justice'. Though I will readily admit that often enough the rich and powerful attempt to co-opt such ideals into their self-serving justifications and ideologies for their own selfish purposes. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. Why can't they just be the democratically elected representatives of the people? Best wishes, 2RM.

I can't disagree with much of that, either, at a purely atavistic level. But also I can't help noticing a (slight) discrepancy between this and your previous idea that we need to understand why the poor are poor, before we can figure out how to rescue them from their poverty. Surely, if someone has such understanding and has done such figuring, they are qualified to make such decisions? (Even if, ideally, they make such decisions tentatively, pragmatically, and with due attention to what is working, and why it works, rather than ideologically and dogmatically?) Best wishes, 2RM