BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness

Subject: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 05:04 AM

It came up on a recent thread that a serious discussion must address both sides of a topic. Perhaps, but inherent in that is to what extent both views should be presented.

So I thought I would try to start a thread in the the style of Michael Sandel's "Global Philosopher" series. If this works out - which I very much doubt! - we could try other topics, but for the moment we will stick to this question:

What does it mean to be fair?

Some broadcasters, such as the BBC, have a concept of fairness in their charter. This is often represented as presenting all views equally. But we know there are some subjects where one view is dominant and the other is - at least in the UK - much less common. Examples might be creationism, climate change and Trump's presidential qualities. The BBC's attempt to be 'fair' can often lead to minority opinions being given (close to) equal air time, which distorts the picture. An example of that, though not one which usually gets tempers too high, is the BBC's "Thought for the Day" which non-believers periodically object to even existing.

On the other hand, is it 'fair' that minority views are not heard? Great social reforms, for example, often started from a small group insisting a situation was 'unfair'. Refusing to hear or print their views can perpetuate unfairness.

I mentioned a few examples above. I fear this thread will immediately turn into a discussion of one or more of those, in which case I hope mods will close it. Have those topics in mind as you post, certainly, but let's try to stick the overarching question of what fairness means.

Finally, there are a few people with enough background to cite philosophers through the ages. That's ok, but please make sure any articles referenced do not rely on specialised concepts. The idea of Being-in-itself, for example, is a bit too far for a general chat like this.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: JHW
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 06:29 AM

Michael Sandel presents, encourages, referees discussion on his topics and does seem to do his best fairly to allow the assembled company opinion to prevail. Maybe such discussion needs to be refereed.

If anything I preferred his live and present audience discussions to the remotely screened 'global' contributors - but thats just my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 06:40 AM

Unfortunately the demand for fairness towards minority views sometimes strays into demands that bigotry should get its "fair share" of airing. A prime example would be Holocaust-deniers demanding that they have a right to be heard under the banner of free speech. My view is that Holocaust-deniers and certain other purveyors of hatred have forfeited their right to be heard. Perhaps cases like that are simple enough, though still not without argument, but there are plenty of others just one side or another of an imaginary red line, which you and I may draw in different places, that are not so easy. You could argue that the simplest thing is just to let it all hang out, but then you are hurting the targets of the bigots' aggression.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 08:58 AM

I am surprised that you think the BBC gives equal time to both sides of a debate . It does of course depend how you define fairness. If it means giving the greater time to the ruling paradigm , and perceived number of adherents to a view , it would be seen as fair . I sympathise with Steves example of holocaust deniers and I certainly don't like holocaust deniers getting a hearing , but I wonder if even such extreme and nasty views are completely prohibited from discussion, will it just give them conspiracy credibility .    At present there are still a few eyewitness testimonies to be heard as well as other empirical recorded data . This should at least prevent denial ideas spreading beyond the haters.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Senoufou
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 09:08 AM

It's one thing to allow minorities to be heard, but can one go further and give them extra rights to accommodate their needs? And can one fairly assess their rights, and from what point of view?

I think the transgender toilets thing is a case in point. Is it fair or not to provide transgender folk with their own loo, or allow them to use the loo of their choice? Would this be fair to the original users of the loos?

And should one be fair to the unfair? For example, the desire for Shariah law for fundamentalist Muslims in the UK. Is this unfair to any women who might be subject to such laws?

Being a Libran, I'm very interested in fairness and Justice. As a teacher I was constantly an arbiter for pupils who claimed something was unfair. I felt like blooming Solomon at times. And you usually end up with one of the parties being aggrieved. I found myself growling, "Life isn't always fair. Deal with it!" But that's a cop-out.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 11:09 AM

Difficult to discuss this issue without examples...I sort of agree with Senoufou "Life isn't always fair"....really it's very seldom fair.

One good example is within this economic system the wealth creators make loads of money but we cant tax them like PAYE folks, because they are generating strength in the economy and jobs of course. The result is the huge wealth gap in developed countries.

There is also a contradiction between personal rights and the rights of a community, or the relative importance of one country within a Union.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Senoufou
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 12:45 PM

I find Equality sometimes leads to Rights and Entitlement, and then one gets Privilege, which knocks Equality on the head.

I absolutely love trains of thought like this. And I adored Moral Philosophy at Uni (It was one of my extra subjects, along with Social Anthropology and Phonetics) I often wish I could re-study those things now that I'm old and have far more experience of life. Students in the early sixties were so naive. I was more like a little girl in those days!
You're right akenaton, it's very hard to ensure that personal rights don't interfere with the rights of everyone else. There's a rather silly dispute going on here about whether wheelchairs are more important than babies in pushchairs when considering that special space on buses reserved for such people. And think of supermarket checkout queues. One would imagine that 'first come first served' applies, but we usually let a very frail elderly person or a pregnant lady go ahead of us, or someone with only a couple of items. This often results in tutting from folk behind us. You can't win!

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 01:01 PM

:0) Yes your right Sen, I usually hold a door open or give way to a lady if we happen to meet at an entrance to a shop...I was brought up to defer in that way by my family.   Anyway about a year ago I was going into a shop in town when a lady appeared from inside carrying two large bags....I stepped back and held the door open, only to be subjected to a tirade of abuse from the "lady" who made it clear that she could manage "very effing well without being patronised by an effin man!!!

So in regard to fairness the rights issue is a quagmire, I fet that I had been unfairly abused and the lady thought she had been patronised......Ye cannae win...eh no?

And.....naw it wisnae Acme :0)

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Senoufou
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 01:13 PM

How very rude and unpleasant of her akenaton! Now, if I had opened the door for her, presumably she'd have been quite grateful if she was carrying bags of shopping. And in that case, she's discriminatory herself isn't she? Woman opening door = okay; Man opening door = 'patronising, effing man'. Not fair at all.

We once saw an extremely scruffy, dirty and rather drunk elderly man sitting on a park bench in the middle of Norwich. We always have a few coins on us when we're 'Up The City' to give to beggars and street musicians etc. So my kindly husband went over with a pound coin for him and got an absolute stream of abuse. He wasn't a beggar at all, just sitting enjoying the sunshine. Our faces were bright red. (Well, mine was. Husband is black)

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 01:14 PM

I also agree with Pete regarding the BBC, which is very biased indeed.
All mainstream media has a "liberal" bias especially what passes for drama these days, comedy, and strangely women's programmes.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 01:27 PM

One of the key concepts of my degree three and a half decades ago was "Repressive Tolerance"...

http://throughablogdarkly.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/repressive-tolerance-and-free-speech.html

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

I understood it in my early 20s... but sadly I seem to be a bit too exhausted and thick to read it now I'm nearing 60... 😩

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: michaelr
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 02:23 PM

ake: Reality is well known for having a liberal bias. (Stephen Colbert)

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:10 PM

Reality TV?    Hi M.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 05:35 PM

I'm a big fan of National Public Radio, but some of my friends consider it to be too "establishment" and others think it's too liberal. NPR doesn't have anything good to say about the Trump Regime, but does that mean it's unfair?
While they did seem to have a liberal bias during the 2008 and 2012 election campaigns, I thought they offered respect and fair coverage to McCain and Romney.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Senoufou
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 06:51 PM

I find it hard to see Privilege without getting cross. It's so unfair that some people have far too much and others (such as those I've seen in Africa) have practically nothing, not even enough to eat.

When we visited London on a bus trip, we ventured into Harrods just to have a look, and saw some very fancy headphones in a glass case priced at £26,000. (This is perfectly true) They were encrusted with diamonds and rubies.I think they get extremely wealthy customers from the Middle East (Saudis for example) who would buy such things. We were frankly disgusted.

But on the way home in the bus I tried to think this through. I know full well if many people I've come across in Senegal, Gambia, Ivory Coast and Ghana could see our modest little bungalow with clean running water and flushing toilet etc they'd be astonished and wish they could have all that. So none of it is fair. There are people with a terminal illness who would view even the Africans with envy, as at least they have a life-expectancy.

So I came to the conclusion that life just isn't, and can't be fair.
One can only do one's best to help others, but total universal equality is a pipe dream.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 07:45 PM

Hi, Senoufou - I find irony in those £26,000 headphones, because the wealthy are spending their money profusely on things that have absolutely no value to us ordinary people. Those headphones waste very little in the way of resources - they just waste rich people's money.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 09:41 PM

'Fair' means at least acknowledging & explaining both all sides of an issue. If you can't coherently state the essence of your opponent's position, you can't rationally debate him.
It also means making an effort to understand the basis of your own position and realize the premises that YOU implicitly use in your arguments(s).

   It ought to also mean that you be aware of 'equivocation' about certain words which both sides employ differently. If you don't mean the same thing, or if you can't at least compare usage, things can deteriorate rapidly..
One quick example I remember from William James' writings on Pragmatism.

What does 'around' mean to different people in different contexts?

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Senoufou
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 03:50 AM

I see what you mean Joe. But if I had vast amounts of dosh, I'd want to use it to help the less fortunate, not buy ridiculously expensive and, as you say, intrinsically valueless luxuries. My husband and I have long conversations about 'what we'd do if we won the Lottery'. (We don't ever buy a ticket, so it's not very likely is it?!) We've worked it all out; funding malaria clinics, fresh water wells drilled, maternity services and so on.
But my husband (he's very perceptive and wise) points out that old people here in UK are less fortunate than African ones. Many of them are lonely and spend hours just trying to pass the time, with few visitors, until they're put in a care home, tended by strangers until the end. In Africa this never happens. The family always, always cares for their elderly, feeds, washes, sleeps at their side, and it's unheard of for anyone to die alone.
What I'm trying to say is that one has to take in the overall picture when assessing fortune/misfortune, under- and over-privileged etc. Fairness is a far more complex subject than one might first think.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Senoufou
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 04:11 AM

That was a fascinating link Bill. As I understand it (and my brain is getting rather old and worn-out!) one need only trouble over viewpoints and positions if they have an obvious consequence or effect. If their differing stances make little or no difference to the situation in question, it's a bit pointless endlessly debating the rights and wrongs of the thing. I quite like Pragmatism on this basis; one needn't trouble one's head over pointless matters. Good!

I also agree with your assertion that communication is very important. One should at least try to understand fully the other point of view, and this can take time and effort. Misunderstandings cause no end of trouble and strife.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 04:14 AM

Thanks for the input, folks. Let me just mention the BBC point I raised, since I was not entirely happy when I wrote it. Their charter calls for a fair and balanced position. The extent they achieve it is another point. But imagine a case where some view - let's say climate change - has almost everyone in the country on one side but (making the figure up) 5% on the other. There are perhaps 3 people in the panel. In order to get any debate they will have at least one denier, so that is a 33% representation, well in above of the 5%. I don't see an easy way out of that one. So the end result is over-representation, not not equality.

But actually, that leads me onto another important aspect of this. I tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to write my remarks on the BBC in terms of fairness. The comments above - which, let me repeat I am grateful for - talked about equal air time, so are expressed in terms of equality. I make a distinction. It could be argued that the air time for each point of view would be fair if it was in proportion to the adherents of each view, which would be a long way from equal. But that is only one interpretation of 'fair', and as I suggested , it would mean that some ideas which are just starting off so have perhaps 100 adherents out of 60 million would never get a mention.

I am grateful to all for how the thread has gone so far.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 04:59 AM

"I'm a big fan of National Public Radio, but some of my friends consider it to be too "establishment" and others think it's too "liberal"."

Sorry Joe, I have altered your quote slightly, but in the present political climate "establishment" and "liberal" are out of the same box.....we are dealing with a completely new phenomenon where the disadvantaged in our society( through globalisation and "liberal" ideology like the use of mass immigration as an economic tool) are finding a voice....that voice is not being projected by the media either here or in the US, nor is popular opposition to the more idiotic parts of "liberal" social ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Stu
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 05:08 AM

The climate denier scenario is interesting but the imbalance can be addressed if it's made clear at the outset that the people present represent a certain percentage of workers, and certainly in terms of the BBC this often doesn't happen. How the time is divided between guests might work but doesn't ever really happen, as would mentioning their qualifications. It's then up to the host to ensure fairness of representation, a difficult task for sure.

Great link Bill (not sure I understand it all, will need to read more thoroughly!), great thread.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 05:12 AM

I can't police threads, of course, but that's getting well away from the fairness and equality discussion, Ake.
in your earlier post you mentioned distribution of wealth. Leaving the 1% out of it for the moment, many people would go along with the adage "A fair day's work for a fair day's pay", and even more "A fair day's pay for a fair day's work". That idea of 'fair pay' doesn't have any idea of equality in it. If anything it implies that unequal pay is acceptable providing there is some justification based on say skills of the workman.

Do you think that, following on from the excellent links above, we have two ideas in mind fair=appropriate and fair=equal, and often slip between the two without really noticing?

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 05:33 AM

Well it was intended as a response to Joe, "D" as I mentioned earlier it is difficult to discuss this issue in any meaningful way without alluding to some examples.

Most of philosophy in my pretty ignorant position :0(, just loves listening to itself?

I'll give you one example D and promise no more, On Question time on Thursday night the panel had been discussing the Trump administration most projected the view that DJ was a monster and should not be allowed into the country or meet the Queen on the grounds that he is misogynistic, homophobic, racist and a general bad egg. They debated at length in terms which were on a par with "discussions" on the subject on this forum. At the end a member of the audience stood up and said that .....you all seem to dislike president Trump because you think he is against homosexuals......but you really love Saudi Arabia who kill them out of hand!! the camera moved quickly away and the host rushed on to the next topic without comment.

Now is that fair?

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 05:57 AM

I'll PM to avoid thread drift.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 06:08 AM

The format of Question Time is what it is. I think it fails at times because Dimbleby appears to think that he has to be combative towards the politicians on the panel (as distinct from keeping them on track, which is entirely valid) as well as doing his job as chairman. Not compatible. There are times when a panellist is scarcely allowed to get a complete sentence out. But, in order to prevent even greater chaos, Dimbleby has to try to get people to stick to the topic as he sees it. The intervention on Saudi Arabia got me cheering like mad but he saw it as straying off-topic. Quite often here, if we stray off-topic we are less-than-cordially (at times) invited to start our own thread. Unlike us, he is under a severe time constraint. The question about Saudi, a country whose behaviour I personally would love to see fully aired on Question Time, is how to get it up there for discussion at all. If there no current context for it, it hasn't got a chance. I went to a Question Time some years ago. Each member of the audience was allowed to submit two questions on scraps of paper, the injunction, apart from getting us to keep them pithy, being focus mostly on topics that were in the news. Then someone behind the scenes selects a shortlist of questions for the show. Likewise, newspaper and television news editors get to select which news items to include, how much time or space each item gets and where in the paper or bulletin it appears. All bias, all quietly applied before a journalist or reporter or a Question Time audience member gets to open his or her mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 08:31 AM

"The format of Question Time is what it is."
Whatever it's faults it should never be an open forum for right-wing nutters like the one who ignored the arguments and shouted "you all seem to dislike president Trump because you think he is against homosexuals......but you really love Saudi Arabia who kill them out of hand!! - totally ignoring the fact that Trupt studiously omitted Saudia Arabia from his banned list despite the fact that that State provided the majority of participants in 9/11
Now that's what I call Hypocrisy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 09:04 AM

I agree about the nutter, Jim, but I lament the fact that Saudi Arabia gets a bye because of the fact that we're in their pockets. I don't think Dimbleby was wrong to pass the bloke by. Needed to make that point briefly but don't want to drag us off-topic.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 09:23 PM

If someone actually argued this: ...you all seem to dislike president Trump because you think he is against homosexuals......but you really love Saudi Arabia who kill them out of hand!! they presented a pair of premises which are likely both inaccurate and/or incomplete. It is NOT likely that many views are so simplistic. Being against Trump would likely have many components, and it is unlikely that anyone 'loves' Saudi Arabia no matter how LGBT people are treated there. Sort of a false dichotomy.

As to the example of a climate denier being 33% of a panel, it would be easy to simply note that panelist X is representing what is commonly understood to be a minority viewpoint in order to BE fair. If the panel is about whether there is serious human activity involved in climate alteration, fair balance on the panel would be necessary... but if the panel discussion assumes human caused climate change is true and is merely exploring 'how' and 'how much', then panelist X might not be included at all, and IF included would be only there to quibble about various data...etc.

   Fairness in matters like air time will always be qualified by the awareness that not all possible 'sides' of all issues can be adequately squeezed into limited time constraints. Fairness might be aided by a list of where to go for a wider discussion.

   In situations involving public concerns about awkward issues it can always end up like certain Mudcat discussions, and descend into complaints ABOUT the very format and control of the 'field of play' and whether the deck is stacked as to who gets to say what for how long in which medium....

We can sort of define 'fairness' abstractly, but for some parties, fair is when their side gets better press. Cue Trump tweets....

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:05 AM

A few thoughts here: You all seem to present fairly debatable matters and points of view- there are many people who disagree with the premise that human beings are a major instrument of climate change, for instance (I am NOT one of them); since there is still a debate going on as to HOW MUCH humans are responsible, I suppose that can be debated.

However, what about the absolutely nutty stuff? Man did not land on the moon. Sandy Hook was a hoax. The Earth is flat.

You get the idea. Are we supposed/required to give serious consideration to those views?

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:48 AM

When assembling a panel for a discussion which is to be publicly broadcast, the members of that panel also need other qualities. They need to be reasonably articulate, not prone to extreme rudeness, and to some degree known to the public. One cannot have a foul-mouthed person, one who cannot express him/herself adequately, or a completely unknown individual chosen at random. For radio or television, I imagine these are things a producer would consider, in addition to a fair balance of viewpoints.

I have actually watched a TV documentary about whether the moon landings were a hoax Ebbie. And also something similar on the subject of aliens coming to Earth for a visit. Although rather daft subjects, they were seriously and fairly presented, leaving the viewers to judge for themselves.

In discussions (as on Mudcat) the most important thing is for everyone involved to maintain respect for the right of all to speak without becoming the victim of scorn, anger or insult. In that way, any debate can be interesting and productive.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Stu
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:51 AM

There is another aspect perhaps worth taking into account here, and that is how information is communicated to the public. Continuing with the example of climate change, the failure here lies partly with he scientists who fail to make their research accessible to the people who will eventually drive climate policy: us.

In my experience as a graphic designer working in medical communications industry and as a vertebrate palaeontologist there is a huge gulf between the way the drugs companies communicate their science to their target audience and the way many researchers do so via public institutions do. I regard this as a cultural issue, and there are of course problems with funding outreach; many universities seem to see sustained outreach as the sole responsibility of the scientist, which of course they're not skilled at creating strategies for (although they are often natural presenters of information).

To allow fairness in a debate, people need to be informed. Partly it is all of our responsibilities to seek out the facts in any particular instance, but it is also the job of researchers to be sure their work is communicated and available, and that people know where to access the facts they need to make an informed decision, and those facts are easy to get at.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:58 AM

I think you're absolutely right Stu. A case in point is the Brexit Referendum. Many people felt they didn't know enough about the situation to make an informed decision about how they would vote.

The trouble with scientific subjects is that a vast majority of the public haven't had the advanced education or scientific background which would enable them to understand the issues. Dumbing down is to be avoided at all costs, but one can't expect ordinary folk to be able to follow complicated research undertaken by PhDs.

Broadcasting also has an agenda to entertain, which might preclude anything too meaty for digestion by the general viewer or listener.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 08:24 AM

I notice the law tends to use the word "reasonable".
While a diferent concept than fair, it seems to have a rather firmer definition.
Would te
ge term reasonably fair add more clarity?

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 08:57 AM

I've always felt that the legal term 'reasonable' is open to interpretation by the person doing the judging. For instance, is it 'reasonable' to smack a naughty child? (Or unacceptable nowadays?) What constitutes a 'reasonable' amount of noise from a neighbour? Is it 'reasonable' to expect goods to be delivered within a certain number of days? It depends on who is deciding doesn't it? None of it is self-evident.

Sometimes on this site I've felt people are being unreasonably angry and aggressive, but it could just be that I'm rather old and used to different manners which pertained in the past. But is it fair that those who are more dominant and assertive 'win' the argument?

I do like the word equality. And everyone having equal rights. But one could say 'yet some are more equal than others'. It's all very difficult!

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Will Fly
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 08:59 AM

Eliza, as far as the Brexit vote went, I would go even further than you and say that very few people knew enough about the economic, political, social and cultural complexities of the LEAVE/REMAIN proposals to make anything like a properly informed choice.

If there are no facts on which a reasonably (I like the word "reasonable" as well, Ed T) fair discussion and outcome can be based, then the public votes with its gut reaction and its prejudices, based on half-truths and some lies - one way or the other. All very silly.

We vote MPs into Parliament. We then ask them to form a properly elected government whose sole task to make important decisions on how the country should work, decisions for which the government can enlist the advice and experience of skilled professionals in various areas.

Then we renounce all that and rely on gut reactions, half-truths and lies. It's a very stupid way to run a country - and I say this regardless of the outcome.

As for the BBC - for whom I worked many years ago - you can be sure that whichever government is in power will inevitably accuse the BBC of bias if government policies and actions are queried. It happened in my time - under both Labour and Tory governments. The BBC has a very difficult job in maintaining equal-handedness and, unfortunately, doesn't always manage it well.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Stu
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 09:13 AM

"The trouble with scientific subjects is that a vast majority of the public haven't had the advanced education or scientific background which would enable them to understand the issues"

This is a key point, and one that scientists need to engage with. One thing I would say is I don;t think the public is as thick as people think, and are more than capable of understanding complex concepts if they are presented in an understandable way; the appetite for science documentaries such as those presented by Brian Cox show folk can cope with complexity and nuance.

But... the information must be communicated clearly and structured in such a way it's digestible.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 11:52 AM

I was thinking last night, while at dinner with relatives, that I might give a little push to the thread onto another somewhat different interpretation of 'fair', but given how splendidly this is coming along I will just let things continue on their current course. My thanks to all for proving the fears I expressed in the opening post were completely unfounded :)

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:41 PM

"
If someone actually argued this: ...you all seem to dislike president Trump because you think he is against homosexuals......but you really love Saudi Arabia who kill them out of hand!! they presented a pair of premises which are likely both inaccurate and/or incomplete. It is NOT likely that many views are so simplistic. Being against Trump would likely have many components, and it is unlikely that anyone 'loves' Saudi Arabia no matter how LGBT people are treated there. Sort of a false dichotomy."


The discussion I referred to was over whether President Trump should be accorded a State visit and a meeting with the Queen.
The panel without offering any evidence suggested that the US president was a homophobic racist. there are large demonstrations at the moment in London in favour of this position.
I have heard nothing against homosexuals from President Trump and his "racism" seems to allude to his anti terrorist travel ban. As far as I know the seven countries which involve a terrorist threat were first mooted by President Obama with no word of dissent.
All citizens of these countries of any religion were subject to the temporary travel ban , until a proper policy could be worked out.

The leader of China was allowed a state visit, as was the Leader of Saudi Arabia who also met Queen Elizabeth.

The human rights record of these two characters is many times worse than that apportioned to President Trump yet he may be refused a State visit, a meeting with the Queen and the opportunity to address the UK parliament..............not fair and all because of the wounded pride of the "liberal" elite, media, and parliamentary rump.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Will Fly
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 05:05 PM

From a recent issue of the New York Times:

'Within hours of Trump's swearing-in, the White House website was scrubbed of any reference to LGBT rights, climate change, and promotion of democratic values. U.S. participation in many international organizations and treaties is currently under review.

Trump appears more invested in protecting the United States' interests than in exporting its values.

Trump's foreign affairs team is also shaping up as one of the most hostile to gay rights in recent history. Vice President Mike Pence gained national notoriety when, as governor of Indiana, he signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law that permits discrimination against LGBT people so as not to violate "sincerely held religious views." As an Indiana congressman, Pence voted against every pro-gay measure introduced in the House of Representatives, including a bill to ban anti-gay discrimination in housing and employment and another to facilitate prosecuting anti-gay hate crimes. In 2009, Pence proposed an amendment to a foreign appropriations bill that called for the removal of all references to homosexuality, noting that "in embracing the advocacy of changes in laws regarding homosexuality around the world, this legislation advocates a set of values that are at odds with the majority of the American people."'

Just saying...

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 05:18 PM

Oh dear, I may have been wrong in my last post: aren't there enough Trump threads already?

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Will Fly
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:03 PM

Yes, you're quite right - the man's name got mentioned and off we went. Irritation gets the better of us sometimes. Shan't talk about the man again in this thread - promise.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:04 PM

These days it seems Mudcat is just one thread after another about Trump.. or obits... ???

is that fair...????? 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 02:44 AM

My post wasn't really about President Trump, it was regarding fairness. Something which Will forgot to mention

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 03:34 AM

Ebbie, the BBC is in my view too keen to present contrary viewpoints on scientific topics on which their editors should know better. Contrary viewpoints which have been extensively debated in academic circles and found to be groundless. Climate change is indeed an example, its hardly possible to turn on a segment on climate change without having a "balancing" viewpoint from someone like Benny Peiser, who is a social scientist not an atmospheric scientist, or Nigel Lawson who is not a scientist at all. On archeology without a contribution from Graham Hancock or someone similar. Whenever there is a comet in the sky such as Halley's comet in 1986 there always has to be a segment featuring someone saying it fortells doom, ranging from those with some scientific credibility talking about impacts, to the bizarre cults claiming that the righteous will be transported away in the comet which is really a spaceship. These people do not have any credibility and they do not merit equal time. No wonder the public are confused, as Stu says they are by and large not thick, but they are presented with a vast array of contradictory information without having the background and information to filter out the total nonsense from areas of genuine debate.

I used to think that it was the equivalent of having genuine debates on politics interleaved with segments from some Walter Mitty character who claims to know all the answers from another life. And lo and behold, along comes Paul Nuttall, and look where that has got us.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:10 AM

These people are no madder or more stupid than those who's universal equality agenda has been so firmly rejected.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 08:44 AM

Ake, if you reject the "universal equality agenda", please tell us which inequalities you support.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 09:07 AM

"I've always felt that the legal term 'reasonable' is open to interpretation by the person doing the judging"

Yes, that is a good point. However, it does give flexibility in an assessment in differing situations. What is defined as "fair" in one point in time, in a multitude of situations, or in differing cultures could vary significantly and could be very subjective.

Years ago, I heard of situations (accurate, or not) where families in the extreme north were faced with starvation with the lack of food. Cultural norms were to sacrifice the weakest family members firs, the old a t young. This seemed reaonable, based on survival logic in that culture. However, in our culture this approachb may not seem to be fair - women and children tend to be seen as more important when it comes to survival strategies (additionally, it may also seem unfair to those being sacrificed).

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 09:28 AM

That situation (sacrificing the least useful members to save the more useful ones) is perhaps Utilitarian or even Machiavellian. One could argue in a rather cold-blooded way that the end result would be for the best, and would justify the means.
We had endless discussions along these lines in Moral Philosophy, usually involving whom one would chuck out of a hot air balloon or a life raft in the Pacific Ocean. It makes me think that, in addition to 'fair' and 'reasonable' there is 'humane' or even 'kind', principles that are much harder to define or to practise. One can't act on mere emotional promptings alone, and it can be dangerous to follow one's 'conscience' or 'heart. I'm sure Hitler himself thought he was doing the best for Germany. And look at those dreadful exorcisms of child witches that take place in, say, Nigeria even today. Presumably the protagonists think it's 'all for the best'

Philosophy is a forest full of briars and unseen traps in the undergrowth! Finding a path through is never easy...

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:37 AM

Under the Reagan administration, the FCC killed the Fairness Doctrine (in 1987), doing away with a policy — put in place in 1949 — that required broadcasters to cover controversial issues of public importance and offer contrasting viewpoints on those issues.

We now have an unofficial freedom to lie or make good TV by screaming at each other.