Isn't it just obfuscation and dishonesty when politicians start making appeals to "fairness"?

I am not a fan of your social darwinism.

@ragingloli
I gather. Still, what are you meaning to say?

Academic success directly depends on the quality of education available, the available nutrition and other support structures, like access to libraries or private tutors. Individuals born to wealthy parents automatcally receives a headstart in life, while those born to poor parents are at an immediate disadvantage. Fairness means to alleviate these discrepancies to level the playing field.
Fairness also means that those who became successful, powerful and wealthy be prevented from abusing their position of power and influence to oppress, abuse and exploit those less successful. Look at China and their practical wage slavery (that western companies fully exploit). To prevent and counter this is fairness.
Fairness is not about making every sprinter get the same time. Fairness is preventing them from doping themselves, cheating, and poisoning the competitors.

@ragingloli Fairness is preventing them from doping themselves, cheating, and poisoning the competitors.

No doubt. In fact, I covered that. My quote, ”...unless of course the former were unfairly inhibited and the latter were unfairly given an advantage”.

So if nobody could dope, cheat, and poison, then soon enough, the smart, energetic, gifted and ambitious people will begin to outproduce and outearn the dumb, slow, apathetic and mediocre. Or not?

But what about a fair start? Equal equipment, no handicaps, equal training, nourishment. etc.

Guys, read the description. I think all that is covered by the reference to John Rawls. Maybe not. But put as many qualifications on the starting point as you like. In the end some will be more successful than others

What, exactly, does a hedge fund manager or a quant produce? Their recent performance suggests that their absurdly overblown rewards were lavished upon them in return for totally incompetent performance. Are not such people and their masters social parasites sucking the life out of the nations they infest? Recent history indicates that it is the “greedy, amoral, psychopathic, and criminal people” rather than the “smart, energetic, gifted and ambitious people” who attain the greatest benefits in a dog-eat-dog economy.

Because you are not understanding what fairness is. It’s not about giving advantages to people for one reason or another, it’s about making sure that starting line on the track is fair so that everyone runs the same distance. Ever notice the staggered starts in a middle distance race? And the fact you have to stay in your lane or be disqualified? That’s fairness.

It would be unfair to give the slowest person a headstart, or a better surface.

So when a politician mentions fairness, he or she is talking equal opportunity, not an advantage. They’re talking about overcoming systemic obstacles that are placed in the way of some people, obstacles such as high crime neighborhoods, unemployment, poor schools, racism, and poverty.

I think you’re completely mischaracterizing Rawls. The though experiment goes that people would decide what rules were fair before they know what circumstances they will enter life into. So If there is a chance that you could be born as a black child to an impoverished mother who works for Wal-Mart making minimum wage, or the son of the CEO of a major wall street investment brokerage firm, how would you want the laws to work BEFORE knowing what situation (or the infinite other ones) you will be born into. If everyone engaged in this exercise, the resulting body of rules/norms/laws would represent fairness.

There’s nothing fantastical about it, I think it’s a brilliant mental tool for figuring out morality/fairness/justice.

I tend to think such a system would result in a progressive tax structure, lots of opportunities for people willing to work hard, and a much more even distribution of education funding for people in the inner city from those in the suburbs. I also think such a system wouldn’t look favorably on the abolition of the “death tax” since it fosters dynastic wealth and discourages the offspring of the financial elite from having to work hard and creating their own destinies. It’s the difference between equality of opportunity vs. equality of condition.

It appears to me that you don’t understand what ‘fair’ means, in this context. I doubt that’s actually true, though, so I’m not sure what your point is.

It’s been explained pretty well by those before me, but if you’re still having trouble with the term, see definition 6 a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism