inequality vs. fairness
The two historians said there was a limit. You cannot put all your resources waiting for someone to follow up. You need to let go even if they cannot follow your step.
Those who are too poor to study, if they are really talented, they will find their own way. It is a big shock to me because the education always teach us to take care of others’ needs. You need to provide the opportunity for everyone to succeed. What should the government do? What is your priority? Do they really mean that only the smartest and wealthiest people can have their luxury to enter the university and those who cannot afford should decide what to do based on their skills, ability, and leverage their own strength and weakness. What are the needs? How should a public sector help to meet everyone’s needs. If you are poor and unhealthy, should we say “sorry, you may need to die,” or “I will help you to survive.” What is the morality of social standard? Each society and each education are quite unique. However, when it contracts with each other, who win? What to do if you are the weak one? What to do if you are on the strong side?
I think historically, the wealthy one stand out to say “hey, we will help you to survive.” It may end up with a disaster because the strong ones thought differently from what the weak ones do. Sometimes there is a need and a fate to fit in. People make choices and bear the results happily or tragically.
What is the problem of fairness? You sacrifice some people’s needs to take care of the others. How much are you willing to sacrifice and who makes the decision? Are you part of the decision team? Will you be end up with the poor group? If your pride do not allow you to deal with the other people, what can you do with the situation? What will the system based on? Is it based on stability or future profitability? There is always a risk on things. What is happiness? What is the trade-off of your happiness? Is this fair to you? Is this fair to others? I believe the argument will continue as long as there are different segments of people. What is the consequence? Are you ready for that?
Define fairness? To what extent is it, or should it be?
Is it the obligation of the government to educate, thus maybe leading to people being able to take care of themselves?
Is it the fault of wealthy people that they were educated, and some not educated, and that they are able to take care of themselves? Should they help the poor? Yes they should. To what extent should that help be? Is there too much help, thus enabling those that they help not to help themselves?
Fairness is the quality of being fair. “Fair” is treating everyone in a way that is right or equal. So the question comes to how to define right or equal.
Everyone has different angle on fairness and on how much I should pay to achieve so-called one. From my point of view and what I perceive, it is to provide an equal opportunity for each of us to succeed in some way. Ideally, it is to allow the disadvantaged minority group to compete with the advantaged one.
What should government do? Why does government even exist? It is to meet what the private sectors need but lack the ability and good will to complete.
It is however that different governments have their own priorities. Education, for example, is a good choice to avoid social problems, which may become a flavored field where government put resources into. Should people pay? Should school make its own money? What kind of research should we pay attention to? Who takes charge?
What is human nature? Should we feed and take good care of all the needs from the disadvantaged, which may result in the lack of their own responsibility? How should we tell people not to get lazy when they can lead a fair life without any effort? Is there any fault? How can we solve the problem? Education? Religion? If knowledge is free of charge, will we cherish its value?
Sometimes we underestimate the true value of things.
But can fairness lead to unfairness. Take for instance affirmation action in America. They will hire, enroll in colleges minority groups over whites in an attempt to “level” the field.
Or hiring an unqualified woman over a qualified man in some cases in the world. People will set their own standards of fairness to the detriment of others. Not black and white as it seems.
Yeah, each government will have their own priorities, but all should have their citizens fundamental rights in front. They should seek for the betterment of their people, and that is not say that they should do everything for them, thus leaving them totally dependent on them.
It takes more than one ingredient to make a good soup. You will need more of one than the other, and season it just right. So yeah, religion, education, knowledge, and so forth will play a role.
Definitely agree with your last line.
Another issue would be how much the advantaged would be willing to trade off what they have for the happiness of the disadvantaged.
Trade off? Why not help with no strings attach? By that I mean, not wanting or expecting something in return; tit for tat. Neither demanding publicity from what you’re doing.
Here my trade-off means how much you’d love to give up instead of how much you will get. In that case, popularity or something in return is not the issue. By what measure are you willing to give away? There is a wide range.