Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (82332)	6/20/2000 7:55:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 108807

This whole discussion started (or at least that's where it was when I go into it) with the question what was the fairest society/government today. How can that question be answered if we can't agree on what fairness is? And if we can't define it, can we say we have agreed? That, I think, is the problem with your response -- the "I can't define it but I know it when I see it." It makes fairness purely subjective. What I think I hear you saying is that fairness broadly understood is the combination of all the individual subjective understandings of fairness. That when the majority (super majority?) agree something is fair or unfair, then it is. But the majority is so often wrong that I have a lot of trouble accepting that as a definition of fairness. I want an objective standard by which, for example, we can say "maybe the vast majority of Americans supported the Jim Crow laws (which, from my experiences in the 50s and early 60s they did), but still they were first, last, and always fundamentally unfair, no matter how many people accepted and supported them.