Fairness

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Fairness

Post by DAWN »

'Fairness' is one of conditions to hatred be arise.

Often is the fairnessless that allow as to act wrongly toward some one, with deluded mind, with hatred and pain. Fairness is rooted on ego.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Fairness

Post by Kim OHara »

Hi, everyone,
I am perfectly willing to admit that I may be missing something and there may indeed be more ego and conceit in fairness than I think there is. But I can't see it. Can you explain it to me, in baby steps?

:coffee:
Kim
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Fairness

Post by DAWN »

Kim O'Hara wrote:Hi, everyone,
I am perfectly willing to admit that I may be missing something and there may indeed be more ego and conceit in fairness than I think there is. But I can't see it. Can you explain it to me, in baby steps?

:coffee:
Kim
Hello Kim,

Impermanence is unfair.

Unfairness fealing is rooted in attachement to what is impermanent.
Attachement is apropriation : "me, mine, what i am".

More generaly, pain and ego comes together.
When there is pain - there is ego, when there is ego - there is pain.
And pain must be healed.

:anjali:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Fairness

Post by Kim OHara »

DAWN wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:Hi, everyone,
I am perfectly willing to admit that I may be missing something and there may indeed be more ego and conceit in fairness than I think there is. But I can't see it. Can you explain it to me, in baby steps?

:coffee:
Kim
Hello Kim,

Impermanence is unfair.

Unfairness fealing is rooted in attachement to what is impermanent.
Attachement is apropriation : "me, mine, what i am".

More generaly, pain and ego comes together.
When there is pain - there is ego, when there is ego - there is pain.
And pain must be healed.

:anjali:
Thanks, Dawn,
I understand that, I think.
But the pain is coming from the attachment, not fairness. If I trip over a chair in the darkness, does the pain come from the darkness or from the chair or from my action?
And you don't mention conceit at all.
:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Fairness

Post by DAWN »

Kim O'Hara wrote:Thanks, Dawn,
I understand that, I think.
But the pain is coming from the attachment, not fairness. If I trip over a chair in the darkness, does the pain come from the darkness or from the chair or from my action?
And you don't mention conceit at all.
:namaste:
Kim
Interesting similie :smile:
I think that pain (stress) comes before the trip itself. And this pain before the trip is conditioned by darkness (you dont see) and chair (chair is out of control).

I think that unfairness fealing is other description of pain, these conceptions are very near in their perception, both painfull, but unfairness seems to be more subtile. Fairness and pain are both born from attachement.

In my perception there is this chain: Conceit > Attachement 'to fenomena' > 'fenomena is' anicca > unfairness/pain.

I think that unfairness is painfull and seems to be 'unfair', because the one can not percive the whoole chain of conditions and concequesnce, so for him it's apear like unfait fenomena, painfull fenomena without causes.
My boxing cautch always said : The most painfull and destructive strike is the one which you dont see.

But unfairness fealing is subjective feeling, there is identity toward which unfair action is done. So this 'object of unfair action' is identity.
Thats why i think that fairness is rooted on me, mine, what i am.

So for the one who dont want suffer from unfairness it can be usefull to keep sense doors guarded: seen as seen, form as form ...etc... And what is done is done, if it's done there is conditions to, and if there is conditions it's not unfair but logical.
So unfairness is illusion of limited perceptions of kamma mouvement.

IMO, of corse. :thinking:

:anjali:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Fairness

Post by danieLion »

Kim O'Hara wrote:...every single one of the references you provided was about comparing oneself with others, and in (almost?) every case the conceit this could lead to was cited as the problem.
My reading of those quotes is that comparing is conceit, not a cause of it. It's conceit in the same way superiority of inferiority are conceit. They're delusional and/or hateful and/or greedy.

In your OP you use the terms "guiding principle" and "rule" implying you hold "fairness" to be a categorically imperative or necessary standard. But your language in this post is contingent. Each of your questions starts with "if."

Cittasanto's post reveals that the Buddha did not treat fairness as a "guiding principle" or "rule" in any categorically imperative or necessary way.
Kim O'Hara wrote:A teaching against conceit is not a teaching against fairness or equality. If I give Adam a dollar, it would be fair for me to give Ben a dollar too. Where's the conceit?
Too vague to be pragmatic.
Kim O'Hara wrote:If I charge Adam a dollar for a Coke, it would be unfair to charge Ben ten dollars for the same thing. Where's the conceit?
That's a little less overgeneralized. But following Hume, we might ask, "Is Ben a seditious bigot?"
Hume's theory of justice...says that the moral status of an action depends entirely on the goodness or badness of the motive that lies behind it, so that, e.g., it is only because certain helpful actions were intended to be helpful (were motivated by the natural virtue of benevolence) that we morally approve of them or judge them to be right and good. However, it is difficult to apply this virtue-ethical assumption to the artificial virtues, because the good motive operative in their instance is the conscientious desire to do one's duty or what is right or obligatory. According to Hume, if I return what I owe to the seditious bigot, my only just motive is the desire to do what is right and obligatory, but, in that case, the morally good motive that is supposed (according to Hume's virtue ethics) to explain the rightness or goodness of returning what I owe to the seditious bigot already makes essential reference to the rightness or goodness or obligatoriness of doing so. As Hume himself tells us, this seems to be arguing (explaining) in a circle, and Hume makes the same point (perhaps even more forcefully) about fidelity to promises.
Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy "Justice as a Virtue"
Kim O'Hara wrote:If I think I should pay for my theatre ticket, I think it's fair if my neighbour pays for his theatre ticket. Where's the conceit?
Even a little more concrete. Maybe Nietzsche can help us with this one.
Origin of Justice.—Justice (reasonableness) has its origin among approximate equals in power, as Thucydides (in the dreadful conferences of the Athenian and Melian envoys) has rightly conceived. Thus, where there exists no demonstrable supremacy and a struggle leads but to mutual, useless damage, the reflection arises that an understanding would best be arrived at and some compromise entered into. The reciprocal nature is hence the first nature of justice. Each party makes the other content inasmuch as each receives what it prizes more highly than the other. Each surrenders to the other what the other wants and receives in return its own desire. Justice is therefore reprisal and exchange upon the basis of an approximate equality of power. Thus revenge pertains originally to the domain of justice as it is a sort of reciprocity. Equally so, gratitude.—Justice reverts naturally to the standpoint of self preservation, therefore to the egoism of this consideration: "why should I injure myself to no purpose and perhaps never attain my end?"—So much for the origin of justice. Only because men, through mental habits, have forgotten the original motive of so called just and rational acts, and also because for thousands of years children have been brought to admire and imitate such acts, have they gradually assumed the appearance of being unegotistical. Upon this appearance is founded the high estimate of them, which, moreover, like all estimates, is continually developing, for whatever is highly esteemed is striven for, imitated, made the object of self sacrifice, while the merit of the pain and emulation thus expended is, by each individual, ascribed to the thing esteemed.—How slightly moral would the world appear without forgetfulness! A poet could say that God had posted forgetfulness as a sentinel at the portal of the temple of human merit!
Human, All Too Human 92*
Kim O'Hara wrote:Conceit can be (must be? usually is?) founded upon comparisons but I can't see how it can be founded on equality or fairness.
Again. Not "founded on." It is conceit. It's conceit in the same way superiority of inferiority are conceit. They're delusional and/or hateful and/or greedy, as DAWN put very concisely and accurately.

*Alternative Translation
THE ORIGIN OF JUSTICE.—Justice (equity) has its origin amongst powers which are fairly equal, as Thucydides (in the terrible dialogue between the Athenian and Melian ambassadors) rightly comprehended : that is to say, where there is no clearly recognisable supremacy, and where a conflict would be useless and would injure both sides, there arises the thought of coming to an understanding and settling the opposing claims ; the character of exchange is the primary character of justice. Each party satisfies the other, as each obtains what he values more than the other. Each one receives that which he desires, as his own henceforth, and whatever is desired is received in return. Justice, therefore, is recompense and exchange based on the hypothesis of a fairly equal degree of power,—thus, originally, revenge belongs to the province of justice, it is an exchange. Also gratitude.—Justice naturally is based on the point of view of a judicious self-preservation, on the egoism, therefore, of that reflection, " Why should I injure myself uselessly and perhaps not attain my aim after all?" So much about the origin of justice. Because man, according to his intellectual custom, has forgotten the original purpose of so-called just and reasonable actions, and particularly because for hundreds of years children have been taught to admire and imitate such actions, the idea has gradually arisen that such an action is un-egoistic ; upon this idea, however, is based the high estimation in which it is held : which, moreover, like all valuations, is constantly growing, for something that is valued highly is striven after, imitated, multiplied, and increases, because the value of the output of toil and enthusiasm of each individual is added to the value of the thing itself. How little moral would the world look without this forgetfulness! A poet might say that God had placed forgetfulness as door-keeper in the temple of human dignity.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Fairness

Post by Cittasanto »

danieLion wrote:Cittasanto's post reveals that the Buddha did not treat fairness as a "guiding principle" or "rule" in any categorically imperative or necessary way.
Hi DanieLion, Kim.
Just to expand what was previously said using this as a backdrop to investigate further....
Personally I believe the texts do show, and do not show, both to be true. it is certainly not a direct "rule" but a "guiding principle" can be inferred or not depending upon ones perspective.
Look at how Sariputta reacted to the Novice who pointed out how he was unkempt one particular day, or when Devaddata was misquoted.
AN9.26 wrote:003.06. At one time venerable Sàriputta and venerable Candikaputta were abiding in the squirrels' sanctuary in the bamboo grove in Rajagaha. Then venerable Candikaputta addressed the bhikkhus: ßFriends, Devadatta preached thus to the bhikkhus-When friends, there is an accumulation in the bhikkhu's mind, it is suitable the hikkhu should declare- `I know that birth is destroyed, the holy life is lived, what should be done is done, there is nothing more to wish.'"

When this was said venerable Sàriputta said thus to venerable Candikaputta: Friend, Candikaputta, Devadatta did not preach the bhikkhus-When friends, there is an accumulation in the bhikkhu's mind, it is suitable the hikkhu should declare- `I know that birth is destroyed, the holy life is lived, what should be done is done, there is nothing more to wish.' Friend, Candikaputta, Devadatta preached the bhikkhus: When the bhikkhu's mind is wisely and thoroughly scrutinized thus, these words are suitable for him.- `I know that birth is destroyed, the holy life is lived, what should be done is done, there is nothing more to wish.'
both of these can show either a veneration for the truth (and discipline, in the formers case,) or fairness.
Equipose is in one way a state of being unbiased.

looking at the Patimokkha and particularly how issues and breaches are dealt with when they warrant investigation, the truthfulness is not something which is decided against like in a court, i.e. the truth of what is said by the accused and accuser are not things which are judged against; it is left up to the persons integrety & they are the owners of their Kamma the ultimate arbiter of fairness in a sense of reaping the results of your own actions. which I would add makes deciding the truthfulness of someone in an accused role pointless in the grand scheme of things as it is in there best interest to be honest and the "jury's" (for lack of better word) best interest not to create a possible schism of sorts through bad feelings and possibly being unfair to the accused without a voluntary confession.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Fairness

Post by danieLion »

Reverend Thanissaro wrote:If you think about people at work who’ve been unfair to you, and you’re all worked up about that, well, try to remind yourself this is the human condition. The Buddha gives lots of ways of counteracting ill-will. The Buddha said this is normal in the human realm; if you want to live in a place where everyone is fair you’re in the wrong place. And you’re not the only one that’s been the victim of unfair treatment. So you decide not to get worked up about it. Not that you become a doormat for other beings, but for the time being, at least, let those thoughts ]go..
-Right Resolve, Right Concentration: September 1, 2012 (6:14 to 7:04/-6:30 to -5:48).
Post Reply