A short post today (casual 4am blog posts), one can think of this as part 1.5 of the theory of discrimination. I want to talk about why effective discussion on topics of fairness are so difficult.
In philosophical discussions, there is often a plea towards some initial intuitions. We often think that our intuitions are our stable position. If someone proposes a theory that seems to fail to accord with such intuitions then this theory must be seriously convincing in order to overturn another theory that seems to work with such intuitions. It might be argued that many of our intuitions are actually fundamentally wrong. For example it is commonly thought that raising children is a good thing, but there are some strong arguments to suggest that this simple act is morally wrong. Regardless, for now let us assume that when discuss a philosophical topic, in this case fairness there exists some reliance on intuitions.
Now, the problem here is that fairness is an unfortunately emotive topic that seems to be biased towards certain sides. I discussed earlier that whilst we wish to begin with a $\Delta_0$ (see below for notation explanation) where we treat everyone equally, we quickly move away from this simply because people seem to have different needs. Discussions of fairness, one might think, are really discussions of how we justifiably treat people differently. Fairness can be considered a distribution function $F$ over a finite number of agents $X = A_1, A_2 . . . A_n$. We wish to decide how we should distribute utility, or a specific resource to these different agents, knowing that they each have specific needs. Whilst on might want to do this mathematically, it might be thought that such mathematical calculations fail to really take into account the full picture of the person. It treats them too much as mundane silent and perfectly rational agents.
This leads to what we might think to be a philosophical discussion of $F$, yet also a discussion that it is difficult to engage in without bias. Here's a basic example: we have two agents $M, W$ and let us suppose that agent $W$ is pregnant, with $M$ being the other party (assume only two agents). Who ought to be able to decide whether the child will be born? A $\Delta_0$ would mean that both parties have equal decision in this process, whilst we might consider a $\Delta_1$ where we justify agent $W$ as having greater right or say in the matter.
A difficulty lies here in that when we engage in such discussion of fairness for $M, W$ it is very difficult to approach such discussions without prior bias, largely because our reasoning relies on this notion of intuitions. A person might identify more with $W$, or more with $M$ and be unable to really think as objectively as we might wish them to do. We want to be charitable towards other views, to really take what they are saying into consideration and to take their argument in their strongest position. Yet, I would argue that even this is not enough. The opposing argument is still unfortunately tainted by some degree of bias, and thus it is still hard to really see the bigger picture. What we really have to do is to adopt some sort of principle of self negativity, where we have to really do what we can to criticise our own argument and to see as many sides as possible. This, it might be thought, is impossible. Can one really try their very best to find the flaws in their own work? Perhaps, but I am skeptical (some meta claims might be made here!).
The problem is really that when we approach a topic, we have our own specific biases and we choose our own specific side. Ideally when we engage with ideas, we are approaching each idea with the same base line. For a given person $K$, suppose we fix this baseline as $L$. Now suppose $K$ supports a specific side of a debate. We wish to have an effective discussion so we want $K$ to really be able to consider the other side of the argument, using the exact same base line $L$. Unfortunately, I claimed that this was not possible. The best approximation we might think is another agent presenting the other side of the argument. However this other agent has their own personal ideas and intuitions and possess a different base line. As a result, it is really difficult to approach what they are saying in such an objective and 'fair' manner.
Notational points: I plan to keep my notation relatively consistent, and ideally standard (but a lot of these ideas are my own). For reference, $\Delta_0$ refers to a 'initial position' where we treat everything with pure equality (equal distribution of everything). $\Delta_1 . . $ refers to modified versions of this position where we begin to use certain factors to justify differential treatment.
No comments :
Post a Comment