Is justice fair?

[Emi]

Ms. Emi

There has been a moral component to the notion of fairness since the 13th Century. This is not disputable. Therefore, one cannot discuss the concept without including that aspect of its meaning.

There are other aspects as well. I mentioned these: propriety, to be equitable, unbiased. Note your response to the three animal behaviors. The explanations reduce to simple bald assertion. There is no verification schema. They have no more force than if one were to say a monkey steals food from another because it was jealous, or angry, or bored, or it is Tuesday. Your reply is uncompelling and unconvincing. Moreover, your reply doesn't even demonstrate any of the other elements to fairness: propriety, equitability, unbiasedness. You reduce the meaning to whatever the subject does: the subject does X, therefore it is fair. This is absurd. There is no equitability in a lion killing the cubs of a newly won pride: no equity for the females or the young who die. There is no equity in an alpha wolf eating first and to its own content, while others watch. It is an example of power and others bowing to it. If a man, because he is stronger than his wife and children forced them to stand by while he ate first, you wouldn't consider it a demonstration of fairness. Should a monkey steal food from another, theft is not an equitable action, by definition. It is to prioritize the self over another. Your explanations are wanting. Your understanding of the concept of fairness, flawed.

We simply have differing opinions on this matter. Would you like me to list sources for me information?

 

[Orontes]

We simply have differing opinions on this matter. Would you like me to list sources for me information?

Ms Emi,

The definitions of words is not subject to opinion. it is not subject to personal whimsy or predilection. In your participation in this thread you have repeatedly erred in coming to terms with the meaning of fair. As previously noted:

You stated fair is a recent word. This is demonstrably incorrect.
You stated fair has no moral connection. This is demonstrably incorrect.

Ignoring the meaning of the word (another error) you put forward you were approaching the concept of fairness and offered biology as your go to for your position. Defining the word fair is not within the purview of biology. You committed a category mistake, a base logical error.

In addition, you anthropomorphized animal behavior. The argument you attempted: fairness is instinctual, would necessitate such could be found in the wild. In three simple examples of animal behavior, your attempts to demonstrate animal fairness boiled down to bald assertion (whereby any act an animal does is thereby fair, that is reductionistic to the point of absurdity): ignoring the essential elements of the meaning of the concept. To whit, equity is an element to the meaning of fair:

There is no equity in a lion killing cubs.
There is no equity in an alpha wolf eating first
There is no equity in a monkey stealing from another

You are simply incorrect in your understanding and approach.


Note: I am familiar with the material you refer to, it does no help your case.

 

[Emi]

Ms Emi,

The definitions of words is not subject to opinion. it is not subject to personal whimsy or predilection. In your participation in this thread you have repeatedly erred in coming to terms with the meaning of fair. As previously noted:

You stated fair is a recent word. This is demonstrably incorrect.
You stated fair has no moral connection. This is demonstrably incorrect.

Ignoring the meaning of the word (another error) you put forward you were approaching the concept of fairness and offered biology as your go to for your position. Defining the word fair is not within the purview of biology. You committed a category mistake, a base logical error.

In addition, you anthropomorphized animal behavior. The argument you attempted: fairness is instinctual, would necessitate such could be found in the wild. In three simple examples of animal behavior, your attempts to demonstrate animal fairness boiled down to bald assertion (whereby any act an animal does is thereby fair, that is reductionistic to the point of absurdity): ignoring the essential elements of the meaning of the concept. To whit, equity is an element to the meaning of fair:

There is no equity in a lion killing cubs.
There is no equity in an alpha wolf eating first
There is no equity in a monkey stealing from another

You are simply incorrect in your understanding and approach.


Note: I am familiar with the material you refer to, it does no help your case.

We simply hold different opinions. I will leave it at this.

 

[Orontes]

We simply hold different opinions. I will leave it at this.

Ms Emi,

As stated previously: the definition and meaning of a word is not subject to personal opinion. Were one to say the definition of the moon is a block of blue cheese, they would be wrong. Opinion is not a justification. Your posts have suffered a host of errors. Interestingly, you have clung to them, despite the glaring faults. Note post 22 where I lay them out.

 

[Emi]

Ms Emi,

As stated previously: the definition and meaning of a word is not subject to personal opinion. Were one to say the definition of the moon is a block of blue cheese, they would be wrong. Opinion is not a justification. Your posts have suffered a host of errors. Interestingly, you have clung to them, despite the glaring faults. Note post 22 where I lay them out.

Your post was about the origin and mine was about the actual philosophical concept of the word.

 

[Orontes]

Your post was about the origin and mine was about the actual philosophical concept of the word.

Ms. Emi,

Your posts have not touched the philosophical concept of the word in any way. Philosophy is defined by the use of reason (logic). Your stance is irrational, it rests on a category mistake. To explain further:

You began by asserting fairness and justice are not synonyms (post 3). From this you claimed fairness does not imply morality (post 8: this was demonstrated as false). The crux of your position was then presented: biology defines fairness. It is instinctual. The clear and obvious problem (as previously stated) is biology is the study of life. It is a physical science. Fairness is an idea, not part of the physical sciences. It is not within the realm of biology to define fairness. This is an unredeemable error. Your stance has no grounding. It is as if one appealed to baking to define liberty. It is a category mistake. It is absurd.

As an aside I also pointed out that even within your would be model it fails on coherence grounds (another component of philosophy): the claim to fairness as instinct could not be demonstrated in three simple examples of animal behavior in the wild (using animals you appealed to). I did this without even referencing morality, but only looking at another aspect of fairness: equity. The only response was to make bald assertions: animal act X is fair, because it is. The view is incoherent. On every would be philosophical level, you are wrong.