Moral epistemology and moral ontology

[Kalam]

Do I care if reality cares? The answer is no.

Then we're all agreed that there is no moral objectivity and it's just a nice tool to employ so that we don't destroy our status quo in a free-for-all battle royale?

[Xant]

Then we're all agreed that there is no moral objectivity and it's just a nice tool to employ so that we don't destroy our status quo in a free-for-all battle royale?

No? Where is that implied?

[Sir_Hans]

So I suppose you think that "fairness" is also just an abstract notion with no basis in anything, a mere social construct?

No, it doesn't "adapt." It refers to a concept that doesn't change. If three people bake a cake, all doing equally much, in no human society will it be considered fair to give Billy two thirds of the cake. Now, in the past, or in the future.

The notion that morals are just a social construct is absurd. Does a blank slate human have a preference for other people suffering or for other people not suffering? Does he prefer for babies to die or for babies to live? Would Gandhi take a pill that makes him want to murder?

The social construction of reality is an ongoing, dynamic process that is (and must be) reproduced by people acting on their interpretations and their knowledge of it. Because social constructs as facets of reality and objects of knowledge are not "given" by nature, they must be constantly maintained and re-affirmed in order to persist. This process also introduces the possibility of change: i.e. what "justice" is and what it means shifts from one generation to the next.

Society's idea of "fairness" is not inevitable, but historically contingent. (Thus the idea or category "fairness" can be said to be "socially constructed".)

For example, take a look at slavery. For thousands of years many different groups of people practiced slavery. Back then it wasn't thought of as unfair or immoral, it was just reality, and nobody batted an eye because generally slaves were looked at as subhuman. Millions of complacent slaves grew up knowing that was their life and their role in life and didn't spend their waking moments believing their treatment was unfair because they got less than 1/3rd of the hypothetical cake.

It wasn't until key people came a long to seed society with the idea that slavery was wrong that it finally started to become perceived as unfair or unjust among mainstream thought, and it wasn't until this moment that people started thinking that slavery should be abolished from the planet and not be practiced.

So when billy bakes a cake with two other people and then takes 2/3rds... is that fair? Well being modern day humans with our understanding of the definition of fairness it's easy to say no that is not fair. (especially when you are taking a mathematical approach to fairness (aka: what is equal))
But if you go into different time periods there are many hypothetical situations where we can surmise that Billy taking 2/3rds of the cake is completely fair and justified to the people of that specific time period and or region, because they do not share our same understanding or current concept of fairness.

I mean this is exactly why the United States created things such as the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. They weren't inherently there, these concepts had to be socially constructed in one way or another and adopted by mainstream society.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Tibe]

Why are you inserting these "what-ifs" into the question when they were never there? If it was not stated that Billy is a highborn, then he is not. I didn't think I'd need ten thousand disclaimers, but here it is, then: assume that the three are of the same status, they have all done as much, there are no special circumstances, that the three are for all intents and purposes equal.

Because those "what-ifs" are important in societies which consider some people to be in higher or lower status by simple birthright. If there are no special circumstances, sure, yea, we are equal. But there are and have been a lot of people on this earth, whose minds can never even think of another person without these "what-ifs", let alone interact with them.

The concept of fairness seems fairly obvious to you, because you are not a blind moron born in a moronic society. It seems like simple logic even. But in the past to some people and societies it wasnt and in some cases today it still isnt. That was my point of evolvement.

And even some cases today fairness comes to question in a modern societies. More complex questions. Questions that especially consider things like historical events for example. What do you think? Should the decendants of the agressors pay the decendants of their victims for crimes commited decades ago? Is it fair? Or whats the fair and correct punishment for a murderer or rapist?

[Xant]

So when billy bakes a cake with two other people and then takes 2/3rds... is that fair? Well being modern day humans with our understanding of the definition of fairness it's easy to say no that is not fair.
But if you go into different time periods there are many hypothetical situations where we can surmise that Billy taking 2/3rds of the cake is completely fair and justified to the people of that specific time period and or region, because they do not share our same understanding or current concept of fairness.

As if you couldn't come up with hypothetical situations where it would be fair in our times. That is not the point at all.

Fairness is symmetry. Fairness is equal division of the cake (in this instance). Fairness is everyone getting their due. It's equal treatment. This is what fairness refers to, it isn't a social construct and it isn't dependent on culture.

If Dennis, Bob and John bake the cake, and Dennis is royalty and thus gets 2/3 of the cake, it isn't because their understanding of fairness is different. Do you really think that the peasant slaving at the fields for his life thinks it's fair that he has to pay half of what he makes as tax to the king? Here I thought it was a common trope for people to bitch about taxes, and nobility getting more than the peasants even though they do nothing but sit on their lazy asses. I don't think I've ever before heard anyone postulate that people think it's fair others get more than they do, while doing less.

[Kalam]

No? Where is that implied?

Right and wrong in the context of human ethical code is always qualitative. These qualities change in definition depending on what culture or individual you ask. If there are universal morals that address every thing, living or otherwise, where do they come from?

[Xant]

Right and wrong in the context of human ethical code is always qualitative. These qualities change in definition depending on what culture or individual you ask. If there are universal morals that address every thing, living or otherwise, where do they come from?

Fairness is different from right and wrong and universal morals.

[Rhekimos]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Tibe]

Fairness is different from right and wrong and universal morals.

So, you are describing exact equal result recieved for exact equal energy spent? What you are describing is a point that has nothing to do with people. If so why even bother to bring it up?

A "fair price" for said work is extremely relative.

[Xant]

So, you are describing exact equal result recieved for exact equal energy spent? What you are describing is a point that has nothing to do with people. If so why even bother to bring it up?

A "fair price" for said work is extremely relative.

No, that is not what I'm describing. If you and your two friends find a treasure chest while hiking, what would the fair division of the loot be? Would the answer be any different if you and your friends lived two thousand years ago? And no, you would not think it was "fair" if one of your friends got a larger share because he's capable of having you thrown in prison if you disagree.

[Tibe]

What If you and your two friends find a treasure chest while hiking, what would the fair division of the loot be? Would the answer be any different if you and your friends lived two thousand years ago? And no, you would not think it was "fair" if one of your friends got a larger share because he's capable of having you thrown in prison if you disagree.

Thats just a single "what if", where a "fair" division in all sense can be possible and determined. And even that "what if" can spread to multiple "what ifs". Generally fair is still relative when dealing with interaction with people. Cause each person puts his own price tag on everything. A moment where "fair" is not relative for a second, is a mere covincidence. Nothing else. Like 3 hikers coming across a treasurechest that can somehow easly be devided into 3.

I recall as a kid, me and my friend were walking and a saw 25 est crows(now like 2€, quite a lot of candymoney back than) flying in the air. I happened grab that. So we started arguing. I was like "hei, dickhead, if you didnt have me you wouldnt have even seen it". And he was "hei dumbass, without me you wouldnt even have been walking here". So I quess we decided to split it. Was it fair? I dunno. Its relative. Same with the hikers. What ifs count.

[Sir_Hans]

As if you couldn't come up with hypothetical situations where it would be fair in our times. That is not the point at all.

Fairness is symmetry. Fairness is equal division of the cake (in this instance). Fairness is everyone getting their due. It's equal treatment. This is what fairness refers to, it isn't a social construct and it isn't dependent on culture.

If Dennis, Bob and John bake the cake, and Dennis is royalty and thus gets 2/3 of the cake, it isn't because their understanding of fairness is different. Do you really think that the peasant slaving at the fields for his life thinks it's fair that he has to pay half of what he makes as tax to the king? Here I thought it was a common trope for people to bitch about taxes, and nobility getting more than the peasants even though they do nothing but sit on their lazy asses. I don't think I've ever before heard anyone postulate that people think it's fair others get more than they do, while doing less.

Fairness is not symmetry and it's not equal division. That is completely incorrect. Think about a large company which employs many people, is everyone getting paid the same? Does everyone in the company think it's unfair because the janitor isn't making the same amount as the CEO? Of course not!
Now let's turn to the dictionary to come with a standard definition of fairness that we can all use.

noun
1.
the state, condition, or quality of being fair, or free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness:
I have to admit, in all fairness, that she would only be paid for part of the work.
2.
the quality of being light of hair or complexion:
She was proud of the fairness of her skin, and never went out without a parasol and gloves.

So it is perfectly reasonable that a peasant who toils the fields for his life only to give half of each harvest to the king might think that his situation is fair. For he does not own the land he works on, the land belongs to the king and in return for the king allowing him to live and work the lands he gives half of each harvest to the king. It's almost like a transaction and I think we can all agree that what is considered a fair transaction is not an innate fact like symmetry or equal proportions of a cake.

One person might think that 5$ is a fair price for an apple pie, while another person might argue that the same pie should cost no more than 4$.
Fairness is completely subjective, unlike symmetry and equal proportions which is objective. Fairness doesn't exist in a mathematical world, it exists in the real tangible world where people are not equal in all aspects.

If three bakers bake a cake together there are many reasons why the cake would be divided up unequally yet all three bakers would still think that they are getting their fair share. Maybe one of the bakers is Emeril Lagasse and the other two people helping him with his cake are interns/apprentices. Undoubtedly if Emeril wanted to take half the cake his apprentices wouldn't bat an eye because they didn't bake the cake to get equal proportions but rather to learn how to bake a cake professionally. If you want to assume that all 3 bakers are equal in all aspects then the bakers no longer are human you might as well just argue that the bakers are actually just a number... 3 bakers = 3... each 1/3rd which makes up the number 3 is equal in all aspects therefor if the number 3 bakes a 1 (cake) then what proportions should each of the 3 get?... basically saying divide 1 by 3 = 1/3rd.

[Xant]

Thats just a single "what if", where a "fair" division in all sense can be possible and determined. And even that "what if" can spread to multiple "what ifs". Generally fair is still relative when dealing with interaction with people. Cause each person puts his own price tag on everything. A moment where "fair" is not relative for a second, is a mere covincidence. Nothing else. Like 3 hikers coming across a treasurechest that can somehow easly be devided into 3.

I recall as a kid, me and my friend were walking and a saw 25 est crows(now like 2€, quite a lot of candymoney back than) flying in the air. I happened grab that. So we started arguing. I was like "hei, dickhead, if you didnt have me you wouldnt have even seen it". And he was "hei dumbass, without me you wouldnt even have been walking here". So I quess we decided to split it. Was it fair? I dunno. Its relative. Same with the hikers. What ifs count.

Yes, it's a single scenario, so of course it's a single what if. If there is even a single instance that works outside a particular time, then that means fairness refers to something other than a social construct. Contrary to the popular saying, an exception does not prove the rule. In real life it's often more difficult to determine what is fair, yes, but that is neither here nor there. It's like saying 2+2 isn't objectively true because 38431+219832 is harder to calculate.

[Jambi]

Hello 
Whatcha guys talking about?

[Kalam]

Fairness is different from right and wrong and universal morals.

Yes.

So...what's your question?