A Fair Society: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » A Fair Society » A Fair Society

A Fair Society
a look at this idea.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

A Fair Society

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5415

Posted 04/27/08 - 07:46 AM:	#176
Glypt wrote: rabeldin wrote: litkey wrote: Subject: A Fair Society #1 What is a 'fair society'? ... A fair society must be recognized by everyone as such. This brings in an element of subjectivity to the argument. There is no "fair society" that everyone agrees upon. Thus, this question will never be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Let's not waste any more time on an issue in which disagreement is guaranteed. A society that facilitates constructive disagreement that has as its goal a fairer society is preferable to one which closes down such discourse and takes fairness off the agenda. I would say the former is a fair society and the later is not. Beware of those who dismiss the discourse on fairness, for therein lies a tendency towards either a mute citizenry that is easily dominated or a society at war with itself. Even if no one agrees as to what is fair the fact that they can disclose the grounds of their disagreement and bring it under public scrutiny entails that the social conditions that make that procedural justice possible, is orientated towards fairness which is in itself an expression of a fair society. If you want to discuss a "fairer society", recognizing that we are only able to make relative judgements, then I'm with you, but the absolutist "fair society" provokes my relativist instincts. Posing the question well is the first step to reaching consensus.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 118

Posted 04/28/08 - 03:09 AM:	#177
rabeldin wrote: Glypt wrote: rabeldin wrote: [quote=litkey] Subject: A Fair Society #1 What is a 'fair society'? ... A fair society must be recognized by everyone as such. This brings in an element of subjectivity to the argument. There is no "fair society" that everyone agrees upon. Thus, this question will never be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Let's not waste any more time on an issue in which disagreement is guaranteed. A society that facilitates constructive disagreement that has as its goal a fairer society is preferable to one which closes down such discourse and takes fairness off the agenda. I would say the former is a fair society and the later is not. Beware of those who dismiss the discourse on fairness, for therein lies a tendency towards either a mute citizenry that is easily dominated or a society at war with itself. Even if no one agrees as to what is fair the fact that they can disclose the grounds of their disagreement and bring it under public scrutiny entails that the social conditions that make that procedural justice possible, is orientated towards fairness which is in itself an expression of a fair society. If you want to discuss a "fairer society", recognizing that we are only able to make relative judgements, then I'm with you, but the absolutist "fair society" provokes my relativist instincts. Posing the question well is the first step to reaching consensus. [/quote] We are almost in agreement. Except reaching an absolute consensus has its drawbacks also, leaving very little room for a "mitigated scepticism" (pace Hume)

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.