Morality versus Fairness

[fast]

That sounds really odd to me. I didn't expect that you would say that all tree cases are cases of Jack's being fair.
Now maybe the monkeys were being treated fairly by that understanding of the term. For example, let's say that the researchers said that monkeys #1, #2, and #3 were to be given cucumbers as rewards, but monkeys #4, #5 and #6 were to be given grapes (a much better reward). Since they're treating monkeys with different numbers differently, they're treating different cases differently, so where is the unfairness?

Motivated by the "friend" example, how about the following?

d. Jack serves everyone, but if they pay in cash and at least the serial number of one of the dollar bills of greatest denomination they use, has two sevens, or four fours, and they're not friends of Jack's, then he punches them in the face.

Is he not treating like cases alike, and unlike cases alike?
I'm trying to figure out how broad your conception of "like" and "unlike" is.

It's not the numbers but rather the group to which the numbers belong. For instance, each case in the control group is being treated just like every other member in the control group; furthermore, each case in the experimental group is treated like each case in the experimental group. You might agree with me if you didn't compare treatment across groups. Looking at intragroup treatment, all are treated the same.

If I sit back and decide to splash water on every other unsuspecting person that walks through my door, I'm being fair until I mess up the order and skip the girl I decided not to splash water on.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It's not the numbers but rather the group to which the numbers belong. For instance, each case in the control group is being treated just like every other member in the control group; furthermore, each case in the experimental group is treated like each case in the experimental group. You might agree with me if you didn't compare treatment across groups. Looking at intragroup treatment, all are treated the same.

You mean that in that case, the monkeys were treated fairly?
Given that there were two groups, based on that one would have to conclude that researchers systematically fail to come up with a good experiment, since they fail to treat the monkeys unfairly.
Personally, I don't agree that that's the common usage of the word “fair”. I don't agree that they were being treated fairly, either, because going by my intuitive grasp of the word “fair” - which seems to be similar enough to that of those researchers, at least when applied to the matter at hand - , their actions are clearly unfair.
On the other hand, your definition of “fairness” does not seem to capture either my usage, or theirs, or as far as I can tell, any common usage I'm familiar with.

That said, I'm still trying to figure out how you're using the word “fair”, and to test the consistency of that usage as well. On that note, I would still like to ask whether, in case d., Jack is being fair.

By the way, how about a trial in which the testimony of a man counts as much the testimony of 4 women if they're the same religion, and the testimony of a Muslim counts as much as the testimony of 4 non-Muslims (for example), or Black people are not allowed to testify in their own defense, etc., would you consider those trials to be fair, as long as the rules are followed?
Or are you using “fair” in a way different from the way in which the word “fair” is normally used in the expression “fair trial”?

 

[fast]

It's not the numbers but rather the group to which the numbers belong. For instance, each case in the control group is being treated just like every other member in the control group; furthermore, each case in the experimental group is treated like each case in the experimental group. You might agree with me if you didn't compare treatment across groups. Looking at intragroup treatment, all are treated the same.

You mean that in that case, the monkeys were treated fairly?
Given that there were two groups, based on that one would have to conclude that researchers systematically fail to come up with a good experiment, since they fail to treat the monkeys unfairly.
Personally, I don't agree that that's the common usage of the word “fair”. I don't agree that they were being treated fairly, either, because going by my intuitive grasp of the word “fair” - which seems to be similar enough to that of those researchers, at least when applied to the matter at hand - , their actions are clearly unfair.
On the other hand, your definition of “fairness” does not seem to capture either my usage, or theirs, or as far as I can tell, any common usage I'm familiar with.

That said, I'm still trying to figure out how you're using the word “fair”, and to test the consistency of that usage as well. On that note, I would still like to ask whether, in case d., Jack is being fair.

By the way, how about a trial in which the testimony of a man counts as much the testimony of 4 women if they're the same religion, and the testimony of a Muslim counts as much as the testimony of 4 non-Muslims (for example), or Black people are not allowed to testify in their own defense, etc., would you consider those trials to be fair, as long as the rules are followed?
Or are you using “fair” in a way different from the way in which the word “fair” is normally used in the expression “fair trial”?

It should be understood and known that the view I'm expounding upon is not the view I'm espousing, just in case that isn't apparent. However, I'm still trying to entertain the notion that fairness (independent of tying it to just actions) has to do with "treating like cases alike an unlike cases unlike." At any rate, that conception of fairness is the view I'm exploring, as it has been stated by someone trustworthy and reliable in the previous forum, and although I gleaned enough to suspect it true that fairness can be present in spite of immorality, I'm still not sure how to properly interpret the previously quoted notion that fairness has to do with treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike. The further removed from distinguishing groups upon which to append cases get from moral behavior, the more distant your general view (I suspect) from fairness gets.

Has fairness to do with being unbiased, and if so, then does such unbiasedness transcend the groups? It would seem that you think so, as perhaps you ought, and if so, then the notion that fairness has to do with treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike, may be nothing more than a necessary condition (but not sufficient condition) of fairness. I don't know, so let me ask you, do you agree with the claim than an act can be fair yet simultaneously immoral?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It should be understood and known that the view I'm expounding upon is not the view I'm espousing, just in case that isn't apparent. However, I'm still trying to entertain the notion that fairness (independent of tying it to just actions) has to do with "treating like cases alike an unlike cases unlike." At any rate, that conception of fairness is the view I'm exploring, as it has been stated by someone trustworthy and reliable in the previous forum, and although I gleaned enough to suspect it true that fairness can be present in spite of immorality, I'm still not sure how to properly interpret the previously quoted notion that fairness has to do with treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike.

I see.

Maybe the definition he gave does match the most common usage – if he gave a definition, or did he only say that fairness “has to do” with that? -, given some characterization of “like” and “unlike”, but you're not interpreting those terms as he did, and he didn't specify how to construe them.

The further removed from distinguishing groups upon which to append cases get from moral behavior, the more distant your general view (I suspect) from fairness gets.

I don't understand that sentence.
Could you rephrase it, please?

Has fairness to do with being unbiased, and if so, then does such unbiasedness transcend the groups? It would seem that you think so, as perhaps you ought, and if so, then the notion that fairness has to do with treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike, may be nothing more than a necessary condition (but not sufficient condition) of fairness. I don't know, so let me ask you, do you agree with the claim than an act can be fair yet simultaneously immoral?

I'm not sure what you mean by “transcend the groups”, but with regard to your question, I'm not sure – and maybe there is more than one more or less common conception of fairness at play.

Maybe some version of an “eye for an eye” law, under which, say, people who rape others for fun are punished with the same number of rapes as they committed, also trying to match the conditions (e. g., if they broke a victim's arm, then they get an arm broken, etc.).
The law is widely publicized, so that everyone who is not significantly negligent will know about its existence, trials are also fair in the usual conception of the term, etc.

Passing or enforcing (at different levels of enforcement) that law seems immoral to me, at least under some (most) conditions. But it seems at least on the surface fair. Then again, that requires that it's fair not to punish those rapists who rape in the context of inflicting legal punishment.

 

[fast]

I just lost my detailed explanation which I think would have cleared up a lot. Grrr!

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yeah, that's annoying.
I usually prefer to use a word processor (which saves the document every two minutes) to write long posts, to prevent that from happening.

 

[fast]

I used to, but I'm typing one letter at a time on an iPad mini

 

[fast]

Let's examine two different conceptions of fairness. The first is the simpler comparison of how a person is treated in comparison to all people. For instance, if a restaurant charges everyone $5 for a buffet lunch, then everyone being charged $5 is being treated fairly. An instance of unfair treatment would be if someone was charged an amount different than $5--be it lower or higher. It might be argued that a waitress charging her best friend a lower price is being unfair to the other patrons, and a waiter overcharging a customer because of a prior social conflict might be charged with treating that patron unfairly. Pretty straight forward ... Treating them the same is fair and treating them differently is unfair.

Now, let's examine a more complicated conception of fairness where people are treated according to what group they belong to. For instance: group 1) customers 3 years old and older and group 2) customers under 3 years old. If the restaurant charges the first group $5 and the second group $2, then fair treatment is no longer a function of treating every customer the same; instead, it's a function of treating every customer as they would every customer in the group to which they belong. For example, it would be unfair to charge a child under three years old something differently than what the other children that age are being charged.

What are you going to say when a 35 year old starts complaining that he isn't being treated fairly when he argues that not all customers are being treated the same (as some are charged one thing and others are charged something else)? Well, you might latch on to the moral notion that it's only right that he is charged the $5 since adults often consume more than young children. The problem with that argument isn't for its lacking reasonableness. The problem is that it may not be applicable since the issue isn't whether it's right or wrong but rather if it's fair or not. The 35 year old is being treated fairly when you compare how other members of the group to which he belongs is being treated.

Now, this is where things start to get tricky. What happens when we turn the tables and start charging children under three $5 and start charging those three and over $2? Some are going to argue that it's wrong, and it might very well be, but the issue isn't whether it's right or wrong. The issue is whether it's fair or not.

If fairness has to do with treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike, then the simple conception of the notion first discussed is usually their line of defense, and people will start saying things like everyone is not being treated the same and conclude that people are being treated unfairly.

See, there was no problem earlier about not treating everyone the same when there was no sign of wrongful behavior when children under three were charged less.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Let's examine two different conceptions of fairness.

I'm not sure either conception is common. But let's take a look.

The first is the simpler comparison of how a person is treated in comparison to all people. For instance, if a restaurant charges everyone $5 for a buffet lunch, then everyone being charged $5 is being treated fairly. An instance of unfair treatment would be if someone was charged an amount different than $5--be it lower or higher. It might be argued that a waitress charging her best friend a lower price is being unfair to the other patrons, and a waiter overcharging a customer because of a prior social conflict might be charged with treating that patron unfairly. Pretty straight forward ... Treating them the same is fair and treating them differently is unfair.

Under that conception, it's easy to find a case that is unfair but not immoral. For example, let's say they owners decide to give a homeless person a free meal, just to help her out. It's not immoral for them to do that.

Alternatively, a group of many people may show up together, and offer to eat there for $4 per person. It may be in the interest of the restaurant's owner to agree (let's say business is slow that day), and not immoral to do so.

What are you going to say when a 35 year old starts complaining that he isn't being treated fairly when he argues that not all customers are being treated the same (as some are charged one thing and others are charged something else)? Well, you might latch on to the moral notion that it's only right that he is charged the $5 since adults often consume more than young children.

But 3 years, 1 day old people are usually far closer in terms of how much they consume to 2 years, 364 days old people than to 20 years old people...

The problem with that argument isn't for its lacking reasonableness. The problem is that it may not be applicable since the issue isn't whether it's right or wrong but rather if it's fair or not. The 35 year old is being treated fairly when you compare how other members of the group to which he belongs is being treated.

And under this conception, groups can be picked in any way the person making the rules chooses?
In that case, then Jack was being fair even in case d. Is that correct?
But there is a difficulty: if groups can be picked in any way the agent wants, there is always a way of picking groups that will differentiate between different people.

For example, how about the following: Jack charges $X to those in the group “Jack feels like charging them $X”. How would you prevent things like that from implying everyone is always fair?

Now, this is where things start to get tricky. What happens when we turn the tables and start charging children under three $5 and start charging those three and over $2? Some are going to argue that it's wrong, and it might very well be, but the issue isn't whether it's right or wrong. The issue is whether it's fair or not.

If fairness has to do with treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike, then the simple conception of the notion first discussed is usually their line of defense, and people will start saying things like everyone is not being treated the same and conclude that people are being treated unfairly

I'm not sure what they'll do, but there are alternatives.
For example, even if fairness has to do with treating cases alike and unlike cases unlike, there may be conditions on what counts as “like” and as “unlike” which do not match either conceptions. Or maybe there is more than one common conception. Or maybe both.

 

[fast]

You have given examples of unfair behavior that is not immoral. Thanks.

But there is a difficulty: if groups can be picked in any way the agent wants, there is always a way of picking groups that will differentiate between different people.

For example, how about the following: Jack charges $X to those in the group “Jack feels like charging them $X”. How would you prevent things like that from implying everyone is always fair?

This bothers me, and it goes to show that taking something to an extreme can be problematic, but what bothers me more is the post hoc changing of criteria to argue fairness.

To illustrate, let me change examples. Let's say a business opens up for the purpose of providing fertility treatment to all women. If a woman is denied treatment because of sexual orientation, then that's unfair.

If the business changes it's position and decides to exclude fertility treatment to homosexual women across the board, then it's not unfair to deny fertility treatment to homosexual woman--if it's across the board.

Now, let's say one of the healthcare workers starts denying fertility treatment to black women. That would be unfair if any of them were heterosexual, for it's unfair to deny treatment to a heterosexual just because she's black, but it would be fair to deny treatment to a black homosexual but not because she's black but because she's homosexual.

She argues that's she's being fair because she's denying treatment to all heterosexuals and all blacks, but her argument doesn't hold up because she is alone in her endeavors. It only holds up if everyone is on the same page. Everyone else is treating black women, so her isolated sense of fair treatment still makes it so that everyone in the group of heterosexual women aren't being treated the same, so it is unfair to deny treatment on the basis of race alone.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You have given examples of unfair behavior that is not immoral. Thanks.

You're welcome.

To be clear, though, I only claim that I gave examples of behavior that is not immoral but is unfair under the proposed conception of fairness described above.

As for whether such behavior is unfair in the (or a) usual sense of the word “fair”, I make no claims one way or another.

This bothers me, and it goes to show that taking something to an extreme can be problematic, but what bothers me more is the post hoc changing of criteria to argue fairness.

To illustrate, let me change examples. Let's say a business opens up for the purpose of providing fertility treatment to all women. If a woman is denied treatment because of sexual orientation, then that's unfair.

If the business changes it's position and decides to exclude fertility treatment to homosexual women across the board, then it's not unfair to deny fertility treatment to homosexual woman--if it's across the board.

Now, let's say one of the healthcare workers in that latter business starts denying fertility treatment to black women. That would be unfair if any of them were heterosexual, for it's unfair to deny treatment to a heterosexual just because she's black, but it would be fair to deny treatment to a black homosexual but not because she's black but because she's homosexual.

She argues that's she's being fair because she's denying treatment to all heterosexuals and all blacks, but her argument doesn't hold up because she is alone in her endeavors. It only holds up if everyone is on the same page. Everyone else is treating black women, so her isolated sense of fair treatment still makes it so that everyone in the group of heterosexual women aren't being treated the same, so it is unfair to deny treatment on the basis of race alone.

But why would the question of whether her actions are unfair depend on whether someone else picks the same category to distinguish allegedly “like” and “unlike”?

For example, let's say that half the nurses decide to deny treatment to Black and gay women, but the other half decide to deny treatment only to gay women. Would the people in the first half be unfair? Would the people in the second half be unfair? If so, why?
The definition does not seem to entail that.

In case of of the groups is the majority, I'm not sure why that would affect the issue of who's being fair, either under an intuitive conception of fairness, or under the second definition you provided.

Or let's take a look at the matter from the opposite perspective. Let's say that the health clinic decides to provide no fertility treatment to gay women, but one of the nurses decides, on her own, to provide the treatment regardless of sexual orientation. Is she being unfair to anyone?

 

[fast]

You're welcome.

To be clear, though, I only claim that I gave examples of behavior that is not immoral but is unfair under the proposed conception of fairness described above.

As for whether such behavior is unfair in the (or a) usual sense of the word “fair”, I make no claims one way or another.

This bothers me, and it goes to show that taking something to an extreme can be problematic, but what bothers me more is the post hoc changing of criteria to argue fairness.

To illustrate, let me change examples. Let's say a business opens up for the purpose of providing fertility treatment to all women. If a woman is denied treatment because of sexual orientation, then that's unfair.

If the business changes it's position and decides to exclude fertility treatment to homosexual women across the board, then it's not unfair to deny fertility treatment to homosexual woman--if it's across the board.

Now, let's say one of the healthcare workers in that latter business starts denying fertility treatment to black women. That would be unfair if any of them were heterosexual, for it's unfair to deny treatment to a heterosexual just because. she's black, but it would be fair to deny treatment to a black homosexual but not because she's black but because she's homosexual.

She argues that's she's being fair because she's denying treatment to all heterosexuals and all blacks, but her argument doesn't hold up because she is alone in her endeavors. It only holds up if everyone is on the same page. Everyone else is treating black women, so her isolated sense of fair treatment still makes it so that everyone in the group of heterosexual women aren't being treated the same, so it is unfair to deny treatment on the basis of race alone.

But why would the question of whether her actions are unfair depend on whether someone else picks the same category to distinguish allegedly “like” and “unlike”?

For example, let's say that half the nurses decide to deny treatment to Black and gay women, but the other half decide to deny treatment only to gay women. Would the people in the first half be unfair? Would the people in the second half be unfair? If so, why?
The definition does not seem to entail that.

In case of of the groups is the majority, I'm not sure why that would affect the issue of who's being fair, either under an intuitive conception of fairness, or under the second definition you provided.

Or let's take a look at the matter from the opposite perspective. Let's say that the health clinic decides to provide no fertility treatment to gay women, but one of the nurses decides, on her own, to provide the treatment regardless of sexual orientation. Is she being unfair to anyone?

Yes, she's being unfair because she's the one responsible for providing the exception. Everyone in their respective groups were being treated just like everyone else in their respective group until she came along and took it upon herself to act on her moral impulses and do the right thing.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You're welcome.

To be clear, though, I only claim that I gave examples of behavior that is not immoral but is unfair under the proposed conception of fairness described above.

As for whether such behavior is unfair in the (or a) usual sense of the word “fair”, I make no claims one way or another.

This bothers me, and it goes to show that taking something to an extreme can be problematic, but what bothers me more is the post hoc changing of criteria to argue fairness.

To illustrate, let me change examples. Let's say a business opens up for the purpose of providing fertility treatment to all women. If a woman is denied treatment because of sexual orientation, then that's unfair.

If the business changes it's position and decides to exclude fertility treatment to homosexual women across the board, then it's not unfair to deny fertility treatment to homosexual woman--if it's across the board.

Now, let's say one of the healthcare workers in that latter business starts denying fertility treatment to black women. That would be unfair if any of them were heterosexual, for it's unfair to deny treatment to a heterosexual just because. she's black, but it would be fair to deny treatment to a black homosexual but not because she's black but because she's homosexual.

She argues that's she's being fair because she's denying treatment to all heterosexuals and all blacks, but her argument doesn't hold up because she is alone in her endeavors. It only holds up if everyone is on the same page. Everyone else is treating black women, so her isolated sense of fair treatment still makes it so that everyone in the group of heterosexual women aren't being treated the same, so it is unfair to deny treatment on the basis of race alone.

But why would the question of whether her actions are unfair depend on whether someone else picks the same category to distinguish allegedly “like” and “unlike”?

For example, let's say that half the nurses decide to deny treatment to Black and gay women, but the other half decide to deny treatment only to gay women. Would the people in the first half be unfair? Would the people in the second half be unfair? If so, why?
The definition does not seem to entail that.

In case of of the groups is the majority, I'm not sure why that would affect the issue of who's being fair, either under an intuitive conception of fairness, or under the second definition you provided.

Or let's take a look at the matter from the opposite perspective. Let's say that the health clinic decides to provide no fertility treatment to gay women, but one of the nurses decides, on her own, to provide the treatment regardless of sexual orientation. Is she being unfair to anyone?

Yes, she's being unfair because she's the one responsible for providing the exception. Everyone in their respective groups were being treated just like everyone else in their respective group until she came along and took it upon herself to act on her moral impulses and do the right thing.

Okay, so a few points:

1. That does not strike me as matching any usage I'm familiar with.

2. The definition you provided does not support that conclusion. It does not say that it depends on whether a group is in the majority or not. So, I don't know what criteria you're using here. It's not intuitive grasp of the words (unless you intuitively grasp them like that?), and it's not any theory about the meaning you've explained, so I'm not sure what it might be.

3. Let's say that it's half and half. Who's being unfair?

4. Let's say it's the other way around: all nurses choose to start providing treatment for gay women, but one of them sticks to her guns and chooses not to change. Would you say that she's being unfair, or all of the others are being unfair?

 

[fast]

You're welcome.

To be clear, though, I only claim that I gave examples of behavior that is not immoral but is unfair under the proposed conception of fairness described above.

As for whether such behavior is unfair in the (or a) usual sense of the word “fair”, I make no claims one way or another.

This bothers me, and it goes to show that taking something to an extreme can be problematic, but what bothers me more is the post hoc changing of criteria to argue fairness.

To illustrate, let me change examples. Let's say a business opens up for the purpose of providing fertility treatment to all women. If a woman is denied treatment because of sexual orientation, then that's unfair.

If the business changes it's position and decides to exclude fertility treatment to homosexual women across the board, then it's not unfair to deny fertility treatment to homosexual woman--if it's across the board.

Now, let's say one of the healthcare workers in that latter business starts denying fertility treatment to black women. That would be unfair if any of them were heterosexual, for it's unfair to deny treatment to a heterosexual just because. she's black, but it would be fair to deny treatment to a black homosexual but not because she's black but because she's homosexual.

She argues that's she's being fair because she's denying treatment to all heterosexuals and all blacks, but her argument doesn't hold up because she is alone in her endeavors. It only holds up if everyone is on the same page. Everyone else is treating black women, so her isolated sense of fair treatment still makes it so that everyone in the group of heterosexual women aren't being treated the same, so it is unfair to deny treatment on the basis of race alone.

But why would the question of whether her actions are unfair depend on whether someone else picks the same category to distinguish allegedly “like” and “unlike”?

For example, let's say that half the nurses decide to deny treatment to Black and gay women, but the other half decide to deny treatment only to gay women. Would the people in the first half be unfair? Would the people in the second half be unfair? If so, why?
The definition does not seem to entail that.

In case of of the groups is the majority, I'm not sure why that would affect the issue of who's being fair, either under an intuitive conception of fairness, or under the second definition you provided.

Or let's take a look at the matter from the opposite perspective. Let's say that the health clinic decides to provide no fertility treatment to gay women, but one of the nurses decides, on her own, to provide the treatment regardless of sexual orientation. Is she being unfair to anyone?

Yes, she's being unfair because she's the one responsible for providing the exception. Everyone in their respective groups were being treated just like everyone else in their respective group until she came along and took it upon herself to act on her moral impulses and do the right thing.

Okay, so a few points:

1. That does not strike me as matching any usage I'm familiar with.

2. The definition you provided does not support that conclusion. It does not say that it depends on whether a group is in the majority or not. So, I don't know what criteria you're using here. It's not intuitive grasp of the words (unless you intuitively grasp them like that?), and it's not any theory about the meaning you've explained, so I'm not sure what it might be.

3. Let's say that it's half and half. Who's being unfair?

4. Let's say it's the other way around: all nurses choose to start providing treatment for gay women, but one of them sticks to her guns and chooses not to change. Would you say that she's being unfair, or all of the others are being unfair?

You've given me something to think about, especially that last point.

 

[fast]

You're welcome.

To be clear, though, I only claim that I gave examples of behavior that is not immoral but is unfair under the proposed conception of fairness described above.

As for whether such behavior is unfair in the (or a) usual sense of the word “fair”, I make no claims one way or another.

This bothers me, and it goes to show that taking something to an extreme can be problematic, but what bothers me more is the post hoc changing of criteria to argue fairness.

To illustrate, let me change examples. Let's say a business opens up for the purpose of providing fertility treatment to all women. If a woman is denied treatment because of sexual orientation, then that's unfair.

If the business changes it's position and decides to exclude fertility treatment to homosexual women across the board, then it's not unfair to deny fertility treatment to homosexual woman--if it's across the board.

Now, let's say one of the healthcare workers in that latter business starts denying fertility treatment to black women. That would be unfair if any of them were heterosexual, for it's unfair to deny treatment to a heterosexual just because. she's black, but it would be fair to deny treatment to a black homosexual but not because she's black but because she's homosexual.

She argues that's she's being fair because she's denying treatment to all heterosexuals and all blacks, but her argument doesn't hold up because she is alone in her endeavors. It only holds up if everyone is on the same page. Everyone else is treating black women, so her isolated sense of fair treatment still makes it so that everyone in the group of heterosexual women aren't being treated the same, so it is unfair to deny treatment on the basis of race alone.

But why would the question of whether her actions are unfair depend on whether someone else picks the same category to distinguish allegedly “like” and “unlike”?

For example, let's say that half the nurses decide to deny treatment to Black and gay women, but the other half decide to deny treatment only to gay women. Would the people in the first half be unfair? Would the people in the second half be unfair? If so, why?
The definition does not seem to entail that.

In case of of the groups is the majority, I'm not sure why that would affect the issue of who's being fair, either under an intuitive conception of fairness, or under the second definition you provided.

Or let's take a look at the matter from the opposite perspective. Let's say that the health clinic decides to provide no fertility treatment to gay women, but one of the nurses decides, on her own, to provide the treatment regardless of sexual orientation. Is she being unfair to anyone?

Yes, she's being unfair because she's the one responsible for providing the exception. Everyone in their respective groups were being treated just like everyone else in their respective group until she came along and took it upon herself to act on her moral impulses and do the right thing.

Okay, so a few points:

1. That does not strike me as matching any usage I'm familiar with.

2. The definition you provided does not support that conclusion. It does not say that it depends on whether a group is in the majority or not. So, I don't know what criteria you're using here. It's not intuitive grasp of the words (unless you intuitively grasp them like that?), and it's not any theory about the meaning you've explained, so I'm not sure what it might be.

3. Let's say that it's half and half. Who's being unfair?

4. Let's say it's the other way around: all nurses choose to start providing treatment for gay women, but one of them sticks to her guns and chooses not to change. Would you say that she's being unfair, or all of the others are being unfair?

You've given me something to think about, especially that last point.

Point 1. I would suppose not. I have deliberately tried to free fairness of its link to that which is right and wrong and to rid fairness of the notion that everyone has to be treated equally in order to rightfully say of them that they've been treated fairly, so if someone isn't being treated right and if they are being treated differently than others, it's hard to imagine that such a thing is fair, right?

That doesn't show that fairness isn't about treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike, but it does seem to suggest that although fairness may have to do with such treatment of cases, it doesn't stand alone as if to say that's all fairness has to deal with...hence my comment before about necessary and sufficient conditions of fairness, my insinuation that the treatment of like cases alike and unlike cases unlike may be necessary but not sufficient conditions in an analysis of fairness.

 

[fast]

You're welcome.

To be clear, though, I only claim that I gave examples of behavior that is not immoral but is unfair under the proposed conception of fairness described above.

As for whether such behavior is unfair in the (or a) usual sense of the word “fair”, I make no claims one way or another.

This bothers me, and it goes to show that taking something to an extreme can be problematic, but what bothers me more is the post hoc changing of criteria to argue fairness.

To illustrate, let me change examples. Let's say a business opens up for the purpose of providing fertility treatment to all women. If a woman is denied treatment because of sexual orientation, then that's unfair.

If the business changes it's position and decides to exclude fertility treatment to homosexual women across the board, then it's not unfair to deny fertility treatment to homosexual woman--if it's across the board.

Now, let's say one of the healthcare workers in that latter business starts denying fertility treatment to black women. That would be unfair if any of them were heterosexual, for it's unfair to deny treatment to a heterosexual just because. she's black, but it would be fair to deny treatment to a black homosexual but not because she's black but because she's homosexual.

She argues that's she's being fair because she's denying treatment to all heterosexuals and all blacks, but her argument doesn't hold up because she is alone in her endeavors. It only holds up if everyone is on the same page. Everyone else is treating black women, so her isolated sense of fair treatment still makes it so that everyone in the group of heterosexual women aren't being treated the same, so it is unfair to deny treatment on the basis of race alone.

But why would the question of whether her actions are unfair depend on whether someone else picks the same category to distinguish allegedly “like” and “unlike”?

For example, let's say that half the nurses decide to deny treatment to Black and gay women, but the other half decide to deny treatment only to gay women. Would the people in the first half be unfair? Would the people in the second half be unfair? If so, why?
The definition does not seem to entail that.

In case of of the groups is the majority, I'm not sure why that would affect the issue of who's being fair, either under an intuitive conception of fairness, or under the second definition you provided.

Or let's take a look at the matter from the opposite perspective. Let's say that the health clinic decides to provide no fertility treatment to gay women, but one of the nurses decides, on her own, to provide the treatment regardless of sexual orientation. Is she being unfair to anyone?

Yes, she's being unfair because she's the one responsible for providing the exception. Everyone in their respective groups were being treated just like everyone else in their respective group until she came along and took it upon herself to act on her moral impulses and do the right thing.

Okay, so a few points:

1. That does not strike me as matching any usage I'm familiar with.

2. The definition you provided does not support that conclusion. It does not say that it depends on whether a group is in the majority or not. So, I don't know what criteria you're using here. It's not intuitive grasp of the words (unless you intuitively grasp them like that?), and it's not any theory about the meaning you've explained, so I'm not sure what it might be.

3. Let's say that it's half and half. Who's being unfair?

4. Let's say it's the other way around: all nurses choose to start providing treatment for gay women, but one of them sticks to her guns and chooses not to change. Would you say that she's being unfair, or all of the others are being unfair?

Point 4. Nevermind the who, that's not important. The important point is whether each person within each group is being treated the same or not. Again, if everyone in a group is being treated just as everyone else in that group, AND if everyone in the other group is being treated just as everyone else in the other group, then everyone is being treated fairly, and that is not to say if everyone is being treated the same--they're not.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Point 1. I would suppose not. I have deliberately tried to free fairness of its link to that which is right and wrong and to rid fairness of the notion that everyone has to be treated equally in order to rightfully say of them that they've been treated fairly, so if someone isn't being treated right and if they are being treated differently than others, it's hard to imagine that such a thing is fair, right?

That doesn't show that fairness isn't about treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike, but it does seem to suggest that although fairness may have to do with such treatment of cases, it doesn't stand alone as if to say that's all fairness has to deal with...hence my comment before about necessary and sufficient conditions of fairness, my insinuation that the treatment of like cases alike and unlike cases unlike may be necessary but not sufficient conditions in an analysis of fairness.

Right. In particular, it might be that the "like" and "unlike" is not any categorization one may come up with, but something more limited.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Point 4. Nevermind the who, that's not important. The important point is whether each person within each group is being treated the same or not. Again, if everyone in a group is being treated just as everyone else in that group, AND if everyone in the other group is being treated just as everyone else in the other group, then everyone is being treated fairly, and that is not to say if everyone is being treated the same--they're not.

The who is important to my objective because I'm asking in order to try to grasp how you're using the words, and to test the consistency of your usage. In particular, you gave a definition that did not support your earlier assessments, but rather led to conclusions your rejected - which you said bothered you.

So, you're not making the assessments based on that definition, or any other you provided. So, I'm thinking maybe that's your intuitive grasp of the term, but I haven't managed to see the pattern - i.e., I haven't managed to learn the meaning of "fair" in your speech.

Also, you say:

The important point is whether each person within each group is being treated the same or not.

But what if they're being treated differently by different people? Why would that imply that someone is being unfair?
If clinic A always offers treatment for gay women, but clinic B never does, is any of them being unfair?
If everyone in clinic C always offers treatment for gay women except for one person who does not, is any of them being unfair?
Why?

Again, if everyone in a group is being treated just as everyone else in that group, AND if everyone in the other group is being treated just as everyone else in the other group, then everyone is being treated fairly, and that is not to say if everyone is being treated the same--they're not.

But I have already refuted that, at least going by your usage of "fair", and as long that groups can be chosen in an unqualified manner.

Again, how about the following: Jack charges $X to those in the group “Jack feels like charging them $X”. How would you prevent things like that from implying everyone is always fair?

And if there is some limitation as to how to make the groups, you provided no definition, nor sufficient examples for me to grasp a pattern, so I'm at a loss at trying to figure out how you're using the word "fair".

 

[fast]

The who is important to my objective because I'm asking in order to try to grasp how you're using the words, and to test the consistency of your usage. In particular, you gave a definition that did not support your earlier assessments, but rather led to conclusions your rejected - which you said bothered you.

So, you're not making the assessments based on that definition, or any other you provided. So, I'm thinking maybe that's your intuitive grasp of the term, but I haven't managed to see the pattern - i.e., I haven't managed to learn the meaning of "fair" in your speech.

Also, you say:

The important point is whether each person within each group is being treated the same or not.

But what if they're being treated differently by different people? Why would that imply that someone is being unfair?
If clinic A always offers treatment for gay women, but clinic B never does, is any of them being unfair?
If everyone in clinic C always offers treatment for gay women except for one person who does not, is any of them being unfair?
Why?

Again, if everyone in a group is being treated just as everyone else in that group, AND if everyone in the other group is being treated just as everyone else in the other group, then everyone is being treated fairly, and that is not to say if everyone is being treated the same--they're not.

But I have already refuted that, at least going by your usage of "fair", and as long that groups can be chosen in an unqualified manner.

Again, how about the following: Jack charges $X to those in the group “Jack feels like charging them $X”. How would you prevent things like that from implying everyone is always fair?

And if there is some limitation as to how to make the groups, you provided no definition, nor sufficient examples for me to grasp a pattern, so I'm at a loss at trying to figure out how you're using the word "fair".

It would be clinic specific, for each clinic has it's two groups. If clinic A always provides treatment for gay people and straight people, then there is only an instance of unfairness when there is an exception, for instance, someone decided not to treat a gay person because of sexual orientation or decided not to treat a heterosexual because she's black. If clinic B provides treatment only to heterosexual women and not homosexual women, then not treating a heterosexual woman would be unfair and another instance would be if a homosexual woman was treated.

Is clinic C treating gays only? If so, it would be unfair to treat a heterosexual. If clinic C is treating both gays and not gays, then not treating someone would be unfair.

In the Jack example, I'm having issues. My instinct is to say it's not fair, but then again, that's an extreme example.

 

[fast]

Treated differently by different people. Hmmm

It's hard to say. I suppose what's more important is who is being treated, not by who is doing the treatment. If all whites treats all whites one way, and if all blacks treats all blacks one way, and if whites and blacks are being treated differently than whites, then i suppose a case of unfairness would be if a black was treated like a white or a white like a black regardless of who is treating who. For instance, if all whites are charged $5 and all blacks are charged $2, then all of a sudden a white person charged a black person $2 (even though ordinarily only a black treats blacks) then it's still fair despite who was treating who but rather the black was treated like all other blacks.

Eta: On second thought, I'm not sure.

So, tell me, why is it unfair to deny treatment to homosexual women in a clinic that only treats heterosexual women? Not why it's wrong. Is your answer because all women aren't being treated the same, or is there a different reason--or multiple reasons. Remember, the issue of what's right or wrong is off the table...unless you think it must be on the table to answer.