Good philosophical question.
- Is there a beneficiary to “fairness”?
- Does it come at a cost to another? Is the cost fair?
- If there is, does that make fair also not fair and thus a paradox? Or does it make fair the opposite of benevolent?
- Is fairness static or dynamic?
- Is fairness universal or subjective?
- If subjective them it can be fair and unfair simultaneously based on perception, making the word pointless .
- Can fairness be weaponized making it no longer existing as fairness?
- Does intent matter in fairness or just outcome?
- How can you even define fairness without the definition including some paradoxes?
- My toddlers only use “fairness” from a place of jealousy, entitlement and victimstance… (“No fair! I want that!”), And it’s rare for many adults to use it for any other purpose that isn’t self-enriching.
I’m actually always impressed when somebody uses fairness in a way that isn’t self-enriching. For example
- A coach reminding players to respect the rules and their opponents.
- Journalism that presents facts without agenda or narrative.
- Steelman-ing a viewpoint or stance that isn’t your own, or especially is opposite to yours (I honestly see this is one of the biggest signs of maturity and high level emotional intelligence that very few people have the ability to ever do at all even when they try, and is one of the best contenders for fairness that isn’t tainted by a purely selfish motivation)
- Constructive feedback
I’m Not even convinced there has to be a “fair to whom” implication of victimstance in all cases. Is it really part of the definition? 