mb121 Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 (edited) Here's another argument that's been thrown at me recently: why is nature fair? Why is it fair that one guy is born with a 150 IQ and another guy an 80 IQ? Why is it fair that because of this the smarter guy is able to make more money? Sure, the smarter guy tried harder and, with his natural abilities, produced his millions of dollars with his own effort, but that assumes he's morally entitled to the fruits of his labor which was aided by his arbitrary endowment of natural resources (his mind, body, etc.) You might respond: but nature isn't fair or unfair, it just is! Only after we are here in nature can we develop a system of morality to determine what is right and wrong. But then the opponent will say: Well, sure, so does Rawls when he delivers his Theory of Justice. He says that since we are here and nature is what it is, we now have to "correct" for it since it is morally arbitrary (some born smarter, stronger, etc.). How do I convince the opponent otherwise w/o re-iterating the first response? Edited April 25, 2007 by mb121 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 How do I convince the opponent otherwise w/o re-iterating the first response?What do you want to convince the "opponent" of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 Here's another argument that's been thrown at me recently: why is nature fair? Why is it fair that one guy is born with a 150 IQ and another guy an 80 IQ? Why is it fair that because of this the smarter guy is able to make more money? Sure, the smarter guy tried harder and, with his natural abilities, produced his millions of dollars with his own effort, but that assumes he's morally entitled to the fruits of his labor which was aided by his arbitrary endowment of natural resources (his mind, body, etc.) You might respond: but nature isn't fair or unfair, it just is! Only after we are here in nature can we develop a system of morality to determine what is right and wrong. But then the opponent will say: Well, sure, so does Rawls when he delivers his Theory of Justice. He says that since we are here and nature is what it is, we now have to "correct" for it since it is morally arbitrary (some born smarter, stronger, etc.). How do I convince the opponent otherwise w/o re-iterating the first response? And Objectivism says that correcting nature is your option, and one that you can exercise for yourself. Rawl's says its society's duty to correct your nature for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWaters Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 But then the opponent will say: Well, sure, so does Rawls when he delivers his Theory of Justice. He says that since we are here and nature is what it is, we now have to "correct" for it since it is morally arbitrary (some born smarter, stronger, etc.). If your opponent wants to be convincing, he needs to give an argument why everyone must strive to "correct" these perceived hereditary imbalances. Why is it fair that one guy is born with a 150 IQ and another guy an 80 IQ? Why is it fair that because of this the smarter guy is able to make more money? Why is it fair that the individuals "born with the highest intellectual capabilities" are to be enslaved to have to work extra hard to support everyone else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spano Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 I think it would help to make your opponent state his claim more directly: rather than asking why is it fair, make him admit he is claiming that nature is unfair. Next, ask him to give the validation of his claim, i.e. which facts give rise to the concept of "fairness" he is invoking. At this point, you will discover he has no such facts to point to. Hence the question "why is it fair that this guy is born smarter than that guy?" is as much meaningless gibberish as "why is it fair that apples are crunchier than oranges?" The only reason the first question sounds remotely sensible is that he is stealing the concept fairness and ignoring its roots in human volition. If he thinks facts are important, you can continue from there. If he doesn't, don't bother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 (edited) I would reply that his definition of "fair" is wrong. He defines fairness as egalitarianism - absolute equality regardless of merit. On the other hand, I define fairness as justice - getting what one deserves. By my definition, nature is fair - if you act in accordance with nature, you will get what you deserve. In fact, nature is absolutely fair, unlike human beings, whose fairness (rationality) we must judge. Edited April 26, 2007 by GreedyCapitalist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted April 26, 2007 Report Share Posted April 26, 2007 I would reply that his definition of "fair" is wrong. He defines fairness as egalitarianism - absolute equality regardless of merit. On the other hand, I define fairness as justice - getting what one deserves. Indeed. I once wrote an essay that said that. It was an essay about fairness and equality. It is a shame I lost it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyedison Posted April 26, 2007 Report Share Posted April 26, 2007 Why is it fair that one guy is born with a 150 IQ and another guy an 80 IQ? What evidence do you have that IQ is innate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utabintarbo Posted April 26, 2007 Report Share Posted April 26, 2007 Why try to anthropomorphize nature? "Fairness" is a value judgement. Nature, per se, makes no judgements. It just is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mb121 Posted April 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2007 Why try to anthropomorphize nature? "Fairness" is a value judgement. Nature, per se, makes no judgements. It just is. Well, because if we determine it is arbitrary, shouldn't we try to "correct" for it? Just like we "correct" for gravity? IE, it isn't fair that some are born smarter and stronger, so shouldn't we do what we can to re-distribute wealth to those who are worse off to raise their position to the highest level society can afford? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utabintarbo Posted April 26, 2007 Report Share Posted April 26, 2007 Well, because if we determine it is arbitrary, shouldn't we try to "correct" for it? Just like we "correct" for gravity? IE, it isn't fair that some are born smarter and stronger, so shouldn't we do what we can to re-distribute wealth to those who are worse off to raise their position to the highest level society can afford? I'll assume sarcasm here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted April 26, 2007 Report Share Posted April 26, 2007 Well, because if we determine it is arbitrary, shouldn't we try to "correct" for it? Just like we "correct" for gravity? IE, it isn't fair that some are born smarter and stronger, so shouldn't we do what we can to re-distribute wealth to those who are worse off to raise their position to the highest level society can afford? You missed uta's point in your response. "Fair" and "arbitrary" have no meaning in nature. Nature is neither "fair" or "not fair", nor "arbitrary". So your whole premise beginning with the clause above is a non-sequitir. "Fair" presupposes a concept of justice, which presupposes value judgements. Nature makes no value judgements so it can't be fair or unfair. The terms don't mean anything. "Fair" is a concept that you can apply to human dealings only after you have developed ethics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted April 27, 2007 Report Share Posted April 27, 2007 Well, because if we determine it is arbitrary, shouldn't we try to "correct" for it? Just like we "correct" for gravity? IE, it isn't fair that some are born smarter and stronger, so shouldn't we do what we can to re-distribute wealth to those who are worse off to raise their position to the highest level society can afford? If we are going to correct the unfairness in the world, why stop at intelligence and wealth? What about looks? Surely it is unfair that some people are better looking than others. In the name of fairness, should not the beautiful be sacrificed to the ugly? Why not re-distribute beauty? Hot chicks would have to date ugly guys and hot guys date ugly chicks. That would certainly go a long way to alleviate the inequalities of nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted April 27, 2007 Report Share Posted April 27, 2007 Is this theoretical hot guy also nice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_edge Posted April 27, 2007 Report Share Posted April 27, 2007 (edited) Fletch, Does that mean I'd have to date the absolute worst looking woman in the world? --Dan Edge Edited April 27, 2007 by dan_edge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted April 27, 2007 Report Share Posted April 27, 2007 Fletch, Does that mean I'd have to date the absolute worst looking woman in the world? --Dan Edge Look, Dan, its either you or me. And being the fair guy that I am, Ill let you have her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted April 29, 2007 Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 But then the opponent will say: Well, sure, so does Rawls when he delivers his Theory of Justice. He says that since we are here and nature is what it is, we now have to "correct" for it since it is morally arbitrary (some born smarter, stronger, etc.). How do I convince the opponent otherwise w/o re-iterating the first response? Fairness is an attribute of a conscious sentient being. Nature is neither conscious nor sentient. Nature is (in a manner of speaking) as dumb as a sack full of bricks. We cannot compensate for what was never missing in the first place. By the way, this means that Nature (Reality) is neither benevolent nor malevolent since benevolence and malevolence are likewise properties of sentient beings capable of formulating and acting on intent. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.