Maybe it's time to leave it at that. I've also explained so many times some of the problems, but to no avail. And it is taking an increasing amount of time.
fast said:
Whatever basis for discrimination one wants to use can be a group.
Okay, I will show that that does not match your usage:
Do you mean whatever basis for discrimination the person acting chooses, or the person assessing whether the action is fair?
a. Let's say it's the former. Nurses in a clinic are not providing fertility treatment to gay women. One woman chooses to do otherwise. She chooses new groups, and then starts to treat gay women. Then, she's being fair, because she is treating people in the same group (which is “all women”) alike, and people in the other group (any entity other than a woman) alike, when it comes to fertility treatment.
If it's not one but two nurses who change, or three, or 24, they're still being fair.
b. Let's say it's the latter. Then all actions are fair. And all actions are unfair, as long as more than two people are treated differently.
Either way, that does not match our previous assessments.
fast said:
Each group will have at least one more group for comparison purposes, such that the groups are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.
By that you mean that for every group (or set of entities), there is a complement? Sure, no problem.
fast said:
I've been using examples that include two groups for simplicities sake.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. But I've been showing that the conditions you keep providing do not match the way you're using the words.
fast said:
If a restaurant decides to only cater to adults, then the discrimination in question is clear, and we can then easily determine the relevant groups. Group 1) adults; group 2) children. Not clear?
Who's the restaurant? The owners? The people working there?
In any case, those groups are clear enough for my point. Let's say that one of the employees decides to cater to children too. He's chosen a different group. Since he can choose any group and be fair, then he's being fair, right?
But then you say that's not so, unless everyone changes. But why? That seems to contradict your definition that anything goes as a group. Or is it that once a group is picked, it's always unfair to change unless everyone changes?
Let's say that everyone but one change. Are they all but one being unfair?
There is also the problem of how you pick the groups of
actors. Why one restaurant, rather than each employee, or a chain of restaurants, or all restaurants in the country? (that “why” is a “why given your definition”, which your previous reply does not explain).
fast said:
Okay, group 1 will consist of adults served at that restaurant and group 2 will be non-adults served at that restaurant. Wait, why are we including only possible customers at that restaurant? Because together, they represent not all customers everywhere but just all (all, i say) customers there. Not a good answer? If we want to know if specific customers at that restaurant is being treated fairly in comparison to other customers at that restaurant, then we need to limit our groupings to that specific restaurant. Now, if you want to know something else, such as whether that restaurant is treating their customers fairly as compared to other restaurants, then the groupings would have to be broadened.
Okay, so this looks like a new idea. You're apparently relativizing fairness.
But I still don't know what your function is. For example, let's say that restaurant A only serves White people. Black people are being treated fairly, by your assessment, since they're all excluded. But let's say that restaurant B serves people of all races.
It seems that Black people (not customers, since they're not accepted customers) in A, are being treated fairly in comparison with While people in A, and Black people in B are being treated fairly in comparison with White people in B.
But Black people in A are being treated unfairly with respect to Black people in B, and Black people in B (who are served properly) are being treated unfairly with respect to Black people in A (who are rejected)?
But then again, let's say one of the waiters in A – say, Bob - starts serving Black people. Then, as long as he serves them, Black people in A served by Bob are treated fairly with respect to While people in A, but unfairly with respect to Black people in A served by other waiters.
Is that what you're getting at?
If so, then why not leave aside the word “fair” altogether, and talk about whether two or more people are treated in the same way by someone else?
It might avoid a lot of confusion.
In any case,
now you're looking at the issue of who's being treated unfairly, rather than the issue of who treats others unfairly. But when it comes to assessing the morality of treating people unfairly, the idea is to see who treats people unfairly, not who is being treated unfairly.
Yet, given the relativization of fairness, it seems everyone is treating people fairly, and everyone is treating people unfairly, just with regard to different groups.
fast said:
How are we to determine whether or not the customers at that restaurant are being treated fairly relative to other customers treatment at that restaurant? Look for like cases and look for unlike cases and see how they are treated respectively. Case 1 (an adult enters and is served). Case 2 (a child enters and is refused service). Case 3 (another adult enters with a child and only the adult is served. Case 4 (an adult is served) case 5 (an adult enters with child but only the adult is served.
But we can change the groups, and that's that. For example, like cases (e. g., all human beings people) are not being treating like.
In other words, why would you say that they're fairly catering to adults, rather than unfairly catering to human beings but failing to serve some of them?
fast said:
Is the restaurant treating everyone fairly? Yes. Remember, they're only catering to adults.
Well, if they keep doing that. But if they serve a child, then why are they not being fair? After all, they're treating like cases (people in the group of adults + the child in question) like, and unlike cases (those not in the group) unlike.
fast said:
They are discriminating against children, but the moral implications is not relevant. All adults are being treated just like every other adult that enters the restaurant: they are served. All children are being treated fairly too, for they are treated just like every other child that enters: they are not served. No case presented is a deviation from how adults are treated that go to that restaurant, and no case is an example of an exception being made for children.
But if a child is served, how is that a deviation?
Let's just consider another group to distinguish “like” from “unlike”, and there is no deviation. Why would you prefer one group (e. g., children vs. adults) vs some other group, and say they're catering to the former?
If they were to serve some children, why would they not be fairly catering to those in the group composed of some adults + a child?
fast said:
Is there discrimination? Yes, children are being discriminated against. Is it wrong? Maybe. Is it fair? As far as the two different groups are concerned, all like cases are treated alike. The second group is unlike the first group, yet every member of the second group is treated the same (unlike those in the first group).
And with respect to some other way of picking the group, some like cases are not treated alike. Who determines which groups to pick, in order to assess whether it's fair?
fast said:
Case 6) an adult enters with a child and both are served. Holy smack! The fact the adult is served does not present a problem, for all adults have been and continue to be treated just like every other adult that comes to the restaurant, but it can no longer be said that everyone has been treated fairly, for an exception has been made when they served a child.
But everyone in the group “adults + Timmy” (who is the child) is being treated alike, so how is that not fair? Why pick the group “adults” instead of “adults + Timmy”?
fast said:
No other child has been served until now, and it's now that unlike cases have not all been treated the same.
You mean, like cases? But like cases have been treated the same. Cases in the category “adults + children who get served” (like cases) are being treated the same. On the other hand, like cases have not been treated the same. For example, like cases (category “all humans beings”) have been treated differently even before the child was served.
fast said:
It's unfair to the other children that that child got served...not unfair simply because she was treated differently...oh no, it's not unfair because of simply that...it's unfair because she was not treated the same as all the other children. We're looking for exceptions to treatment within the single group to which she belongs.
The child
belongs to infinitely many different groups. With that procedure, one can always set the groups to get the “fair” or “unfair” verdict.