Fairly Fair

What is fair?

In any given circumstances, what is the most fair perspective for valuing all units included?

By “units”, I’m generalizing for the potential to include a wide variety of factors which could be considered for value, from simple possessional objects, to (perhaps more significantly) humans. By “value”, I mean consider its worth, for the potential to estimate the degree of effect that it may deserve in any given situation. 

When it comes to estimating the value of other people from a 1st person perspective, by default, it seems that others should be considered equal in value. This seems like a generally fair, basic, default perspective. But when more information is known about the individuals involved, perhaps this can tip the scales of absolute equality valuation. In a post from a couple yrs ago; Prequel Chance, Equal Enhance, I described how it seems that in order to estimate the value of others, for potential redistribution of resources, beyond the individuals’ current possession of resources, it seems their initial opportunity is more significant. Their opportunity to use resources incorporates their freedom of choice for use of resources. So the added information in this case, is of the individual's opportunity, which adjusts valuation. 

It seems like this concept should be fairly applicable for estimating a fair perspective of value for units within any given scenario. For eg, a situation to use default equality, because of no additional information, may be; 3 people are very hungry, and you have 6 apples. You equally distribute 2 apples to each, as there is no additional information about the 3 people. If you have information of their varying initial opportunities for food, this may adjust your valuation for distribution. If you have 6 new apples, 1 hr later, and know that the last time you gave the 2 apples to Larry, he chose to throw them at other people (rather than eating), perhaps this time you give Larry no apples, and 3 apples to each of 2 other new people who have not had the chance for apples yet. The information of Larry’s opportunity to have apples, could adjust your distribution, since the 2 new people have not had that opportunity. 

When the scenario includes others in comparison to oneself, is there any variation in estimating what is fair? In my last post; Selfishness, I explained how it seems that in order to determine if an act is selfish, the individuals’ estimate of intended self-benefiting effects, should be compared to their estimate of negative side-effects towards others. This was under a default assumption that oneself can be considered equal in value, compared to others. Should this be fair to consider benefits for oneself of equal value to negative side effects for others? 

For an eg of concept, using objective comparison; you are filling a trough with water, using a bucket to pour water from a river into the trough. When you pour the water in, sometimes water splashes out. Every portion of water can be considered objectively equal in value, within the context of the goal to fill the trough. If the action of pouring water, causing the intended beneficial effect of adding water, is a quantity which is greater than the negative side-effect of losing water (via splashing), than the action is justifiable. If more water splashes out as a side-effect, than is gained by pouring in, the action is objectively negative towards the contextual goal. If this concept is applied toward selfishness and fairness for general actions in ones’ life, it seems that indeed, an actions’ intended gain for self benefit, should not be outweighed by the negative side-effects towards others. 

But when considering the concept of fairness based on equal opportunity, oneself would also have to have equivalent opportunity, compared to others, within the context. If you have 2 matches left to light our candle, and you’ve already had the opportunity to try 3 matches, but failed, it should be fair to give the next match to someone who has not had the opportunity to try lighting their candle. If they have the proper technique striking a match, to light their candle, that is better than you wasting it on another failed attempt. Maybe then, they could also use that gained sum benefit, to in turn light your candle, with theirs.

Just as it is for considering general equality for resource distribution towards others, opportunity seems to be a relevant component for estimating fairness in any given circumstances. When oneself is involved in the comparison of value for receiving benefits, it seems rationally fair to valuate yourself as equal to others, in terms of positive gain or negative loss. Whether oneself, or known opportunity, is involved or not, estimating equal value, seems to be fairly fair. 

Selfishness

What degree of self benefitting intentions, does it take to be considered selfish?

As most things seem to turn out, there is likely a scale from 1 end of the spectrum to the other, of varying degrees of the concept. And as with most trait or attribute concepts, selfishness is likely basically impossible to measure accurately, but that is where a best estimate comes in. To make a best estimate of the degree of selfishness, the factors involved in the concept which is insinuated by the word, should be understood. The basic factors involved in selfishness, seem to be a given action taken, and the intentions of the action. 

In my previous post, Immoral Quantity Question, I explained how an individuals intentions seem to determine the degree of an action being immoral. In the case when the negative effects of their action were not the main intention, yet they were aware of which, then an extra step is involved to estimate the degree. The extra step is determining the individuals estimate of comparison between the knowledgeable negative side effects, vs their intended positive effect. If this is the method for estimating the degree of immorality of an action, how is selfishness estimated?

The intended positive effect, just might be the key for estimating selfishness. For immoral degree, I generalized the positive and negative effects, but the receiver of the positive effect, should be very relevant for selfishness. If the receiver of the positive effect, is the individual themselves, who is performing the action, then it could likely be selfishness, whereas if the receiver is someone or something else, it would not be a selfish act. So when the positive action is intended for oneself, what amount of negative side-effects are acceptable, without being selfish? 

For eg, when Bob is holding a door open for the next random person, how long should he hold it, to not be considered selfish? The intended positive action for Bob’s self, when he stops holding the door, is he no longer has to spend time and energy holding the door. The negative side effects for others, are the next person has to use more time and energy to open the door themselves. 

Perhaps understanding what is fair and equal between people is a significant factor. If everyone is considered equal by default, then hypothetically, every person should receive equal positivity (including oneself). So when an action is taken, the negative side effects which result for others, should not outweigh the positive effects for oneself. If there are more negative side effects on others, than the individual gains from the intended positive effect for themselves, then it seems they are being selfish. Determining amounts of negative and positive, to be compared, is of course very complicated and inaccurate, and unknowable even by the individual themselves. But best estimate of perspective of these factors, should still be the best estimate for selfishness.

So hypothetically, if Bob stops holding the door for the next person, at the point when the negativity of the extra energy and time it takes for them to reopen it, outweighs the positivity gained by him, of saving time and energy holding the door, then he is being selfish. For it to be considered selfish (on these bases), it would basically have to be an estimate by his perspective, that the next person will have to spend more energy to reopen the door, than he has to spend holding it.

The degree that an action is selfish, seems to be a similar estimate, to an immoral action. Both are the individuals’ perspective of their intended positive effects, compared to the negative side-effects. The main difference is that a selfish act, involves specifically a positive effect for themselves. Determining what degree of negative, is fair to outweigh the positive, may be another concept in itself, but for a basic understanding, this comparison seems to be a fundamental function in the concept of selfishness.