View Single Post
Old 2013-01-18, 21:25   Link #40
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 29
Originally Posted by monster View Post
That may be true in a "fair compromise," but not necessarily in all matters of fairness. Even then, it's less about everybody losing and more about nobody getting everything they want. A competition where one party wins and all other parties lose can still be fair even if not everyone is equally satisfied with the outcome.
The loser would only be "unsatisfied" if he felt he had unjustly lost (Say if the winner had cheated). If the loser lost through fair play of the game, he should be equally satisfied with the outcome as the winner (though obviously not as happy about it).

Of course, sore losers would not be satisfied if they lost, but then the law isn't built to cater to those sorts(thankfully).

Originally Posted by solidguy View Post
Law intends to establish fairness in society but there are so many instances where the execution of it is both unequal and unfair. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not demanding a perfect system where theres 100% fairness all round, just trying to explain that there are instance of lawful justice being unequal and unfair. Fairness is a concept and law is a system. Although related, I don't see them as being one in the same.

Maybe this boils down to defining fairness? Of course each definition will differ depending on what derives from your philosophical/political foundation of thought. I believe in practical equitable outcomes...but I know that school of thought isn't too popular these days...
Originally Posted by maplehurry View Post
And then if you bring politics into this, some laws would seem even less fair because they were made with the "ulterior" motive to differentiate and then target specific group of people even though they seem to apply to everyone on the surface.
These are specific instances where the law is unfair. However I was disagreeing with the notion that the law is generally unfair. If the Law is unfair, it is the exception not the rule. As a rule the law is constructed to be fair, though it being a human construct there will be instances where the law is not as fair as it could be.

The Law could be unfair in specific cases, but in general it is fair, because by definition the law is the human sense of "fairness" codified. If the law was inherently unfair to it's core, no one would follow it, because the reason people consent to the law is because we think it's fair and just (and laws that are seen as unfair/unjust quickly get ignored by the public at large EG Drug Laws).
DonQuigleone is offline   Reply With Quote