Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nature isn't fair!

Rate this topic


mb121

Recommended Posts

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 by mb121
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by GreedyCapitalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...