What we ALL share in common that troubles us equally...

[Eyeon]

.

[Scott Mayers]

The question is hypothetical of something I presume everyone asks at some point in their lives, not some self-pessimistic frustration of mine uniquely. I proposed this is at least a question we ask because we are born into a world where there is a cultural myth that gets imposed upon us from childhood on that this IS a decent and 'fair' world.

Now, you may, like me, recognize this world as indifferent to what we mean by fairness. But this misses the point that most still presume some validity to their social, cultural, or political opinions and that we all debate to determine and decide which rules we shall agree to. But any such opinion is about whether one view is MORE or LESS 'fair' by some standard of comparisons among us all. If reality is truly indifferent to fairness, then what standard are we using to defend one view from another?

In other words, for those of you who are religious and embrace the right-wing ideal of embracing social Darwinistic behaviors in economic competition [ie, free enterprise], why are you also oppositely asserting some 'God' as fair and 'right' to serve your favor ofr believing in it? You use an athiestic kind of pragmatism but pretend you or others should believe that something fair still exists later on,....just in the elsewhere zone after our present lives are over. So how is it not hypocritical to dictate, for instance, that all others in society are more fair if and only if they accept a default subservience and faith IN YOUR 'right' to things like inheritance, unlimited wealth restrictions, and freedom for you uniquely?

For the non-religious or secular, why be concerned about anyone other than yourself? Why NOT behave most devious and deceptive as necessary to get life to satisfy your sole selfish desires at the exclusion of all others? Why be concerned about helping others but you and those you intimately love even if others might suffer for it?

One thing I grew up in is of people who tell you things like, "anyone can (fairly) be anything they want to be if they sincerely wanted or believed in it and themselves strong enough." How can this be a 'fair' behavior other than to con those whom you know cannot succeed in order to prevent them in finding some bigger and more powerful weapon to take what you have when they want for it?

The question of 'fairness' is valid and underlies all social, religious, political, and economic realities. It is okay for YOU to accept what is 'fair' but NOT others; So you do what you can to get the other guy to believe in the myth while asking that they do not be skeptical of you.

Thus, we are born into a world that while it is sincerely unfair, we should still be deluded too if we are also thinking anyone can be fair at all. The indifference of nature to not care then suggests for those of us knowing is to cheat, steal, lie, and kill if need be, because if YOU don't, then you will become the victim of those who do!

So now the spoiled brat who DOES ask, "why should I do what anyone else says I must when I do not want to because it is not my fault we are born into a world without fairness." is both a reasonable attitude and question that all of us asks about the world equally in some way. The fact that you might not literally ask this question as is is irrelevant. We implicitly 'ask' this anytime we open our mouths with an opinion we think others should adopt. We do this when we even expect anything of reality at all unless we can create or control our successes for having it.

[Scott Mayers]

If there is one thing that you can argue that we all share equally relates to something many (if not all) of us has questioned as a child:

"Why do we require any limits or controls on our behavior when it was not OUR choice to be born?"

We would normally not state it this way of course but the point should be understood:

Why do I have to live under any world that I did not choose to be born in by some force beyond my power and yet be expected to conform to rules to any extent that I have not participated in making nor negotiating?

You're questioning the right of the decision (making a decision), and a part of that decision is limitation (limitation is one of the pure categories of understanding). Understanding requires limitation in order to function. The resolution to your question (I live under limitation?) is that in order to understand, limitation is a requirement.

This is not the point. See my last post above. I already recognize that barriers are the only reason for conscious existence. It is the lies that society puts out to us THAT there exists sincere postitivity in this world that is equally accessible to all (ie, 'fair' to all).

[Walker]

Why do I have to live under any world that I did not choose to be born in by some force beyond my power and yet be expected to conform to rules to any extent that I have not participated in making nor negotiating?

You must do this in order to avoid conflict with your environment. However, not doing this will not bring you peace. To not be conditioned by the outside forces of laws and rules, while living with those forces, does allow you to live in peace.

This applies even if you're a solitary hermit and your environment is nature, with its laws and rules.

[Scott Mayers]

Why do I have to live under any world that I did not choose to be born in by some force beyond my power and yet be expected to conform to rules to any extent that I have not participated in making nor negotiating?

You must do this in order to avoid conflict with your environment. However, not doing this will not bring you peace. To not be conditioned by the outside forces of laws and rules, while living with those forces, does allow you to live in peace.

This applies even if you're a solitary hermit and your environment is nature, with its laws and rules.

But is it 'fair'?

If it is, then why is it not 'fair' to equalize people's powers upon birth? [like inheritance, genetic endowments, etc.]

If not, then is it not 'fair' to BE 'unfair' if it advantages you in any way'?

[Walker]

Unfairness may be inherent to a particular external law or rule, but to be conditioned by unfairness is not necessary. When one is at peace, one is not in conflict. Choice is a consequence of conflict … either this or that, either obey or not. When there is no conflict there is no choice, just as there is no choice in being born. One is not conflicted over whether to wear the blue shirt or the red shirt, whether to obey or not obey, one is not conditioned by external forces to function from conflict, one lives in peace. If one must act against one's own inherent sense of fairness, such as refusing to fight in a war and as a consequence being shot for treason, then there is no conflict. One lives at peace under the rules. And if one must struggle to change the inherently unfair rules, one lives at peace within such a struggle.

[Scott Mayers]

Unfairness may be inherent to a particular external law or rule, but to be conditioned by unfairness is not necessary. When one is at peace, one is not in conflict. Choice is a consequence of conflict … either this or that, either obey or not. When there is no conflict there is no choice, just as there is no choice in being born. One is not conflicted over whether to wear the blue shirt or the red shirt, whether to obey or not obey, one is not conditioned by external forces to function from conflict, one lives in peace. If one must act against one's own inherent sense of fairness, such as refusing to fight in a war and as a consequence being shot for treason, then there is no conflict. One lives at peace under the rules. And if one must struggle to change the inherently unfair rules, one lives at peace within such a struggle.

What we all share in common specifically is the dillemas involved due to differences (a 'non-fair' and 'unfair' factor) among people.

Of course what one thinks if they were born to a world that was ONLY themselves is not even worthy of consideration because ALL people in such a condition are in sync with their perception of fairness, whether nature itself is imposing it or not. Nature is not so negotiable and not relevant to this question. You are thinking in line with Age regarding my discussion about morality I'm discussing with him/her on the general subject.

My proposed question as something we ask in common is distinctly about the balance of power between people in our lives that is imposed upon any person differently than any or possibly all others where we CAN potentially negotiate to make things more fair versus being forced to accept what one is given unfairly.

For instance, should I be expected to conform to a prior constitutional set of laws that go against my interest where I have no power to veto those I disagree with? In politics, for example, a law that grants a 'right to inheritance' doesn't fairly distribute the means to give everyone born to HAVE an equal chance NOR opportunity to earn them equally.

So my general point here is to determine if this is NOT the common denominator of concern across all people universally? Those born with ideal genetics and/or inheritance will argue that they should not require being burdened (often rhetorically labeled as, "taxed') to distribute fairness for thinking that it is not their own fault for being born lucky. The one born with genetic deficits or lack of inheritance would ask why they should require obediance to require laboring for another whereby they are burdened with requiring a much higher expectation of acceptance of the system set against them by being so unlucky. The distinct political ideologies certainly base themselves on this basic question as its initial defining platform.

That those born with wealth will have a greater tendency to adopt Conservative politics because they believe it is 'fair' to CONSERVE their fortune inherited to them. Those born poor or into some genetic race of less popular appeal, will tend to adopt Progressive politics because PROGRESS (change) is needed to redistribute fairness to those in need.

[attofishpi]

Do you agree that we all ask: "Why do I require doing X when I did not opt in by choice?"

What does that mean?

The question is so ambiguous as to render it incomprehensible...especially where a binary YES\NO answer is required.

Are you asking:- Why am I required to do X (something) when I did not opt in by choice?

If not, please replace X in an example question.

[Eyeon]

.

[Nick_A]

Scott

"Why do we require any limits or controls on our behavior when it was not OUR choice to be born?"

This reminds me of a person buying new car and when he tries to drive it the car asks why there are controls on its behaviors when it didn't ask to be created. The car doesn't realize the owner isn't here to serve the car but the purpose of the car is to serve a need of Man.

People make the same mistake when they believe the purpose of the universe is to serve Man. It is the opposite. The purpose of life as a whole including animal Man is to serve a universal need we are normally oblivious of.

[Scott Mayers]

Do you agree that we all ask: "Why do I require doing X when I did not opt in by choice?"

What does that mean?

The question is so ambiguous as to render it incomprehensible...especially where a binary YES\NO answer is required.

Are you asking:- Why am I required to do X (something) when I did not opt in by choice?

If not, please replace X in an example question.

I've answered this with some of the other responses to others already but understand it is bothersome to read each and every post before participating.
So let me try with you independently.

Why do we require follolwing rules or laws of conduct presumed to be something relatively univerersal and especially constitutional under the guise of our acceptance when we did not (or may not) agree to them in the first place and that we still have no power to negotiate?

Of course we have no choice but to abide to the general environment we are born into. Nature itself is non-negotiable. But for humans, we form government systems (here meaning any management system that governs over others, like our parents rules within our own homes.) These systems are set up to provide rules that is assumed to involve what we call, 'fairness'. Yet to those, especially kids as they mature, raise doubt about why some rule is considered, 'fair' for all those these rules apply to if it has not been agreed to as such by those the rules apply to AND where there is often a clear contradiction to its 'distribution accross all members'. A kid would ask "why is it fair that I have to do X when another doesn't."

Many would then turn around and say, "The world is not 'fair'".

Okay, the one might be thinking. "Then me, being an element of this world of 'unfairness' should not be expected to BEHAVE 'fair' towards others."

Every political ideology has some platform defined by some assumption about unfairness that they feel needs to be addressed. Every rule-based system is defined to have rules that remain CONSISTENT across all those using it and is thus an example of this 'fairness'. Nature is 'fair' if you interpret things like conservation laws as trading tit-for-tat any energy exchanges, ...unlike, say, the way a trade between people who utilize distinct differences of power in knowledge or wealth to 'optimize' their side of the trade to their advantage. The ones with the relative power have an unfair (unbalanced) advantage but perceive this power as 'fair' by nature [contrary to what they might turn around and tell their wining kid how life is unfair hypocritically.] The ones without the power, like all of us who are required to 'agree' to some ubiquitous contract, are not literally 'fair' for them actually being non-negotiable in effective force.

The nature of 'fairness' is a universal concern to which asking why anyone should go along with some expected rule of conduct they played no role in negotiating nor actual handshake agreement to. I pointed out how the left-wing politics is based on asking why should it be fair that most who are born in poverty are unfairly enslaved to be forced to pay rent on the Earth they are born into. The right-wing politics is based on the belief that their own accident of birth is a 'fairness' of inheritance that they too find 'unfair' should they be expected to be 'taxed'.

All social imbalances that are addressed using ANY social or management system are argued to be about addressing what they think is 'fairness' in Nature among them; But they also argue to others that, "life is unfair, ....deal with it".

So my point is that we ASK this question universally in differenct contexts for all issues concerning others. And when a kid argues that it is not their choice to be born at all and then asks why they should be forced to have some burden imposed upon them OUT OF so-called rules designed FOR 'fairness', while apparently naive, it is actually a very logically appropriate question at the core of everything.

I used the 'X' to be about anything expected BY other humans to those who had not or cannot participate in the rules set before them in a consitutional way. We are born into a family that may believe in Islam, for instance. If one is female and their parents set up some arrangement for them to be married off, do they not ask themselves why they should be expected to abide by this custom when they did not CHOOSE to be born a woman but believe they are 'equal' in having the same emotional drive for wanting freedoms as their male counterparts. Why then is it 'fair' that they be FORCED to abide to even comply to their environment's claim THAT some God says it so.

I'm getting at the core of a CONTRADICTION to any of our differences of views that can collectively describe social interactions and is an underlying question for philosophy. If we can find agreement to WHAT is at the core of all conflicts in life that we share, this would be a significant means to determine how (if possible) we can find a means to resolve them better collectively.

[Scott Mayers]

Scott

"Why do we require any limits or controls on our behavior when it was not OUR choice to be born?"

This reminds me of a person buying new car and when he tries to drive it the car asks why there are controls on its behaviors when it didn't ask to be created. The car doesn't realize the owner isn't here to serve the car but the purpose of the car is to serve a need of Man.

People make the same mistake when they believe the purpose of the universe is to serve Man. It is the opposite. The purpose of life as a whole including animal Man is to serve a universal need we are normally oblivious of.

First off, I'm discussing people interactions and rules WE make, not simply physics. The problem is about how hypocritical for some subset of people to think the rules set out for another are 'fair' when 'unfairness' still exists. Why SHOULD anyone obey some other subset of people's demands under the guise of 'fairness' when this is itself NOT something that the Universe supplies? If there is no fairness to Nature, and we are a subset of this, then what should compel us to BE anything but liers, cheaters, theives, etc, where it optimizes our own circumstances?

Take the example of the present ubiquity of supposed 'agreements' that are non-negotiable one-sided waivers by those who have a virtual monopoly on certain areas. Today, none of these businesses require handshaking agreement to conspire among themselves DIRECTLY but can still maintain INDIRECT ways to assure that all other businesses comply to the same behavior. The EULAs (End-user-licence-agreements) are ubiquitous abusers of this because these are NOT 'agreements' since they are non-negotiable. One might say that YOU can choose NOT to buy in. But if we are say talking about communications, for instance, whereby the set of phone companies, internet providers, and cable companies are now ALL in sync with using these agreements, the one who opts out not only looses the significant essential means to communicate at all, but they truly lack ANY power to effectively 'protest', ....because the act of being able to be seen is controlled through the very media that you opted out of.

We are headed for disaster if we cannot determine what is at fault. It begins, as I'm trying here, to AGREE to something that is true unversally across all people. IF we cannot find agreement to even some common question we share about this 'unfair' world, then anything we attempt to even discuss on philosophical issues are useless.

[Scott Mayers]

This is not the point. See my last post above. I already recognize that barriers are the only reason for conscious existence. It is the lies that society puts out to us THAT there exists sincere postitivity in this world that is equally accessible to all (ie, 'fair' to all).

What sort of lies are you talking about in particular? Are you referring to commercials/television?

The most common theme in children's movies, especially but not exclusive to things like the upcoming Christmas season, is that

"IF you BELIEVE in something hard and sincerely enough, ANYTHING is possible."

This is one of those lies. But commercials are also like this. Why is it appropriate, for instance, that car company commercials (most extreme) use half a page of a quickly flashed statement that caveates the rhetoric used in the commercial to deceive the consumer? [Even if you had a large screen 4K television, the writing is still hard to read when paused!] Why is this deception necessary unless these companies presume us all as equally deceptive in principle (for being allowed to do this at all)? Why is appropriate to use words like, 'free' when selling with a caveate redefinition that goes against the normal everyday understanding of this?

This corporate attitude sets the stage of legitmizing society to distrust them. But these very corporations would also hire expensive lawyers to find ways to fight within a system of justice for 'fairness' towards their freedom to be 'unfair' in principle.

[attofishpi]

Do you agree that we all ask: "Why do I require doing X when I did not opt in by choice?"

What does that mean?

The question is so ambiguous as to render it incomprehensible...especially where a binary YES\NO answer is required.

Are you asking:- Why am I required to do X (something) when I did not opt in by choice?

If not, please replace X in an example question.

I've answered this with some of the other responses to others already but understand it is bothersome to read each and every post before participating.
So let me try with you independently.

Your are missing my point. If you are going to survey a question, then you need to be certain that logically the options are valid, otherwise the stats you wish to analyse are going to be inaccurate OR people such as myself will not select anything because we may as roll a dice or in this case, flip a coin.

God knows what people that selected YES or NO put in place of X. I presume you selected one of them, what was X?

[Scott Mayers]

What does that mean?

The question is so ambiguous as to render it incomprehensible...especially where a binary YES\NO answer is required.

Are you asking:- Why am I required to do X (something) when I did not opt in by choice?

If not, please replace X in an example question.

I've answered this with some of the other responses to others already but understand it is bothersome to read each and every post before participating.
So let me try with you independently.

Your are missing my point. If you are going to survey a question, then you need to be certain that logically the options are valid, otherwise the stats you wish to analyse are going to be inaccurate OR people such as myself will not select anything because we may as roll a dice or in this case, flip a coin.

God knows what the muppets that selected YES or NO put in place of X. I presume you selected one of them, what was X?

I DID mention the poll was trivial and only an aide to those who might want to use them. Perhaps I shouldn't have used it or not so before we could address what the question might be once I've explained what I was looking for. As long as it is NOT 100%, then this suffices to express disapproval of the particular wording I used for what I meant and actually points to the fact that we can likely never get resolution to solving political, social, or general philosophical questions in agreement.

EDIT addition: I see that you ask what I would put in place of X as though this needs a constant. It is intended to be ANYTHING one can replace with it that permits agreement because we need to at least start with something of GENERAL agreement and then tear it down into specifics. But you are right in that we could revise it generatively. Laws do this where they specify definitons up front with a number label. Then if it is unsatisfactory, it is 'repealed' with a new number (version) with an updated description.

What do you propose might be better? [If you or others want this changed, given I opened the thread, I'd have to do it. Just ask me. I'll number them if updated to help differentiate the more accepted versions.]