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.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (93476)	11/3/2008 8:24:22 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541487

You might want to consider that "fairness" has been shown to be an emotional trait in other animals, so the odds of humans NOT having such an innate trait are probably zero to none based on biology.

To: Lane3 who wrote (93476)	11/4/2008 12:32:12 AM
From: spiral3	Respond to of 541487

How does Occam's Razor tell us that fairness is the framework through which we should look at family relationships? Occams Razor is not in the business of telling us that fairness is the framework through which we should look at family relationships. It simply provides recourse to the notion that in the absence of argument, the situation you described, fairness was present whether you were consciously aware of it or not. I always thought that kids were naturally selfish, naturally inclined to consider getting what they want to be fair, if they thought of it at all, and that sharing has to be taught. It's been my experience that the degree to which sharing has to be taught varies with the individual, this sense is definitely more developed in some kids than in others, from the get go. They are discovering that monkeys have an intuition for fairness, so in many ways I'd venture that it's more a matter of nurturing something that is already there, as opposed to creating it from scratch. In the absence of rules or as an exception to rules, a utilitarian explanation for a decision, freely offered, disabused notions of unfairness. You can only disabuse notions of unfairness if there are also notions of fairness. These concepts can be spoken of separately, but are not separate in the world as it is. Packaging them into bounded boxes does a poor job of describing the reality we experience, therefore not very useful imho. Un/Fairness is a dynamic reciprocal process , not a concept to be be kept in in a cage, just because you can cognize of it so. Similarly I'm sure you've thought long and hard about fairness and that your utilitarianism is not as "independent" from your sense of fairness as you suggest. When this Utilitarian derivative made an appearance in your mind, did it just pop in there, uncaused, from another universe. Of course not. I never had a complaint about fairness That's obviously because you were very fair. If you're naturally independent of fairness, there's no reason to introduce it, which was my original point to Ed. There was no reason to introduce it, because it was already there. There was obviously an implied agreement that the way in which you were doing things was fair. Having no reason to introduce it does not mean that it was not important, that fairness was absent or that you're naturally independent of it. Just because I get hit by a car because I'm unaware of it, does not mean that the car was not there, no matter how "naturally independent" I think I am of it. I'm am curious about your notion of someone who is "naturally independent of fairness" I'm not even sure I know what that means. Could you produce such a person, or at least cite some examples. It unnecessarily complicates things no comment. and is emotional, therefore unmanageable. total BS., sorry, but it is - you just mentioned that fairness was something that could be taught, and now, it's unmanageable. Which box is it in now. I was looking for some rational for fostering it as a desirable framework. Well you floored me on that one. Fostering fairness as a desirable framework huh. Not sure this is the right thread for that. In families or outside of them, the fact that we all like being treated fairly, makes it a very practical approach and this should provide sufficient reason or um, utility. edit. I see neolib mentioned the monkeys.