Over a year ago, in February of 2002, I began a discussion on fairness in this journal. In it I really did not do much. I basically gave a possible working definition of fairness and tested it with a few intuitive examples. What I would like to do today is a different goal which involves fairness. I would like to see how fairness and equality relate, since they seem to be some of the central tenants in what we consider to be a morally acceptable society. 

This could turn into a somewhat difficult discussion, so I will move fairly slowly. Let me first define our two subjects. Fairness is when a person gets what s/he deserves. Equality is when two things are the same. Those are both fairly transparent and non-controversial definitions, so they give us a good starting point.

What I really want to focus on tonight is different conceptions of equality, and where fairness fits in. While it might seem obvious that the values of fairness and equality are related, I wish to suggest that they are essentially related in a just society. Let’s begin with investigating two conceptions of equality.

One common conception of equality is egalitarianism. This is kind of like total equality. In an egalitarian state, everyone is as equal as the government can possibly get people to be. It is debatable to just what lengths a society would go to in order to insure total equality, but they would at least guarantee total equality of income, wealth, and obviously of rights. There is no true egalitarian state currently in existence, and I would contend that one could never exist – but that is a different discussion. The types of governments that really go for egalitarianism are essentially socialistic or communistic. The U.S. is definitely not egalitarian and does not really attempt to be.

Another type of equality I’ll call “libertarian equality”. It might be a bad idea for me to use the term ‘libertarian’ here, because that has all kinds of incorrect connotations attached, like drug legalization and euthanasia legalization, etc. Instead, what I intend for libertarian equality to mean is, quite simply, for everyone to have the same liberties/freedoms. Of course, in a state with libertarian equality, people would not necessarily have equal economic conditions. The only equality that would be insured would be that of what freedoms they could exercise. In other words, if one person had freedom of speech, so would everyone else. It should be clear that every egalitarian state also has libertarian equality, but not every state with libertarian equality is egalitarian. The U.S. is probably a good example of a country with basic libertarian equality.

Clearly, there is no need to stop here. There are a nearly infinite number of different types of equality that one could define in a similar manner to what was done with the two above. This, however, will do for the discussion I plan to engage in here tonight.

Up until now I have no talked much about fairness, and this was intentional. What I hope to do now is to figure out where fairness plays into societies that exercise these two types of equality. For simplicity let me name to hypothetical societies. Let a country called Egal be egalitarian; let a country called Libe have libertarian equality, but not egalitarianism. Okay, so these names aren’t particularly creative: deal with it. Now let’s consider the role of fairness in each of these countries.

Let’s actually begin with Libe. So the question we must ask is: how does a person gets what they deserve in a state with libertarian equality? Well, it seems that fairness fits in pretty well. First, everyone has the same freedoms. This makes sense, since it seems fairly intuitive that if one person deserves a given freedom, everyone deserves that freedom. Since the relevant freedoms here most people would argue are innate freedoms, there is nothing that someone does to deserve them. Of course, this would not be any different in Egal.

The difference would have to come with something other than freedom, since both societies’ people would have equal freedoms. So instead, we would have to focus on how fairness affects a feature in which they differ. The most obvious feature to consider is probably economic conditions. In Egal, everyone has the same income and wealth. In Libe, these conditions can vary from person to person.

What does fairness tell us about economics? It tells us a few things. It might seem fair in some theoretical and fluffy sense that everyone has the same economic condition. Yet, our definition of fairness said that a person gets what s/he deserves. So the question to ask would be whether or not every person deserves the same economic condition? If you say yes, I would ask why? What is the cause for this desert? It does not seem particularly innate. For instance, should someone who picks oranges in a field be paid the same amount as the CEO of Microsoft? If not, then fairness does not seem compatible with egalitarianism.

In order to determine if this is true, let’s consider a few examples to shed light on things. First, let’s imagine an orchestra. This orchestra is performing Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto at their concert this week. The clarinet soloist is one of the most well-known clarinetists in the world. Should the person playing 3rd violin receive the same paycheck as the clarinet soloist? Intuition says that this probably would not be fair, since the clarinetist deserves more than the 3rd violinist: the clarinetist contributes more to the performance. It is also pretty impossible to argue that the clarinet’s talent and the time spent learning the piece would be the same as the talent and time spent by the 3rd violinist. As a result, the clarinetist deserves more.

Another even better example might go as follows: Dr. Martin works in a lab in Miami. He has spent decades working on cancer research. Today in this lab, he finally developed a cure for cancer. Another man, Bob, also lives in Miami. He sleeps under a bridge near the interstate, and holds up a sign that says “Will Work for Food”. Of course, he won’t, but he gets money that way, which he uses to buy cheap whisky which he drinks until he passes out every night. In egalitarianism, Dr. Martin and Bob both must deserve the same reward for what they do in an economic sense. Yet, it is fairly indisputable that they do not.

I think that this is enough with examples: you probably get the point. I would assert that the economic situation that one has should be predicated on the quality and quantity of work which s/he does. As a result, my claim is that an egalitarian state does not value fairness as it was defined above. Now that seems absolutely counterintuitive to anyone who has ever thought much about egalitarianism. I mean, the whole point of egalitarianism is to make everyone equal. In some strange way, most people would assume that this implies fairness; after all, how could equality be unfair? I think it has been shown that this is in fact necessarily the case with egalitarianism: egalitarianism and fairness conflict.

Now, you probably think that I’m going to commend libertarian equality for not conflicting with fairness, but you’re in for a surprise: it has its problems too. At least, it has problems in an absolute sense. In a society that has absolute libertarian equality, people in prison should still be guaranteed the same liberties that law abiding citizens enjoy. We don’t do that here in the U.S. If you’re in jail, there are certain freedoms that you are denied. One example is that you are disenfranchised, but a more interesting one is that even the most basic freedom to go where you choose is taken away. This, however, is admittedly an exception to the rule. One would argue here that someone who has violated the laws of the land has, in fact, breeched some implicit social contract and has denied those freedoms to him or herself. If this breech had not occurred, s/he would still be enjoying those freedoms. As a result, at the root of it, libertarian equality does not conflict with fairness.

What I hoped to show in this investigation is that equality alone can be very misleading. It is an important value, but it is not the only value, nor is it sufficient to insure its existence alone when trying to establish a just society. Fairness is as important. Furthermore, in a truly just society, one must insure that both equality and fairness do not conflict. This society might produce some counterintuitive results. Another politically volatile topic that was not mentioned here was affirmative action, but it would be excluded in a society that reconciles both equality and fairness. But trying to imagine potential societies that hold these two values in a similar esteem is very useful: it can actually allow us to determine which policies that our politicians bicker about in real life should be adopted and which should be struck down.

Today I was watching some TV, like I do most days when I have nothing better to do. In one of the TV shows there was a young actress who is becoming quite famous. She’s in a TV show, she’s doing movies, and she’s got a CD coming out. When I see teenage entertainers with such drive and talent I can only think one thing: I wish it didn’t have to end in such a mess.

In case what I’m getting at isn’t totally obvious, these young entertainers seem to always end up with huge problems. A prototypical example is Britney Spears. When she was just beginning to get famous, between the ages of 16 and 17, she really was a nice girl. I honestly believe that she wasn’t slutty, she didn’t do drugs, and she knew how people should act. It’s less than 5 years later, and already all of this has changed. These days she acts like an obnoxious diva, she drinks excessively and smokes, and she spreads her legs for whatever guy looks cute that night, be it Colin Farrell or Fred Durst.

What is it that goes so wrong with these teenagers that leads their lives in the wrong direction? I guess we could flow with this example for a while and let things be concrete instead of abstract, so what the heck happened to Britney, for example? There she was with nothing but a bright future, and now she’ll probably be in Penthouse Magazine within the next 18 months.

One could argue it’s the lifestyle. This probably has something to do with it. There are parties all of the time, and you are surrounded with drugs and alcohol. So it seems natural, even necessary to partake in that which those around you do. Maybe it’s as simple as peer pressure. Yet, this seems like a serious cop-out. Teenagers face peer pressure every day, and a huge number of them stand up to this peer pressure and do not let that pressure get to them. But I would argue that the percentage of everyday teenagers who do not let peer pressure affect them is far greater than the percentage of famous teenagers who do not. So I do not believe that peer pressure alone is enough to blame this all on.

Since peer pressure is so common, I think one would have to find an avenue which is unique to these young entertainers. Other than the parties, the lifestyle itself could yield one to turn to drugs. Maybe a performer isn’t getting enough sleep and needs a kick so turns to speed. Maybe the stress is extraordinary, so s/he feels like alcohol or marijuana is the only solution. This all seems somewhat plausible, but it does not explain all their behavior: surely one cannot blame the drugs for everything. I mean, these teenagers change from upstanding young people to scumbag adults.

Another guess is that perhaps it is the money. Money does change people, especially when one is very unaccustomed to having it. But again, I don’t find this particularly convincing. First, entertainers of other ages who suddenly gain popularity do sometimes change significantly, but there are a huge number that do not as well. Furthermore, people who get rich in other ways, like business, do not experience similar problems. I mean, we hardly see Michael Dell or Bill Gates posing in Playgirl or getting arrested for spousal abuse.

My best presumption is that it has to do with a lack of parental influence. Think about it: if you’re filming a TV show and a movie, while recording a new CD, how much time do you really have to spend with your parents and family? Probably none. Going back to the Britney Spears example, her parents did not travel with her or live with her when she was becoming famous. Instead, she had a kind of baby sitter, who was more of a friend than a parent. I have a hunch that most child stars face a similar situation.

A lack of parental influence could account for literally all of the unwanted behaviors: lack of supervision and stern consequences could lead to drug use; these things can also lead to situations where it is a lot easier and more acceptable to have sexual escapades as a teenager; and obviously without parents teaching you the difference between right and wrong and molding you into an upstanding adult, how else can one expect it to happen? In fact, even non-famous teenagers who have a significant lack of parental influence often end up screwed up when they become adults. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, so there are some child stars that end up not too screwed up, but they are in the minority. With this hypothesis, however, this is what one would expect.

Maybe I’m making too big a deal of focusing on child stars. I mean, let’s face it: Most celebrities in general are pretty screwed up individuals. Look at celebrity marriages, for instance. But I guess with child stars it really magnifies things. With them you see this budding talent, and as the stars grow, their path towards their own destruction seems increasingly unavoidable. I just hope that there really are exceptions to the rule and that some of these young entertainers will deviate from that path and find the way to having a healthy balanced life, while still managing to exploit their talent to the fullest.

A few times in the past I have referred to articles that I found particularly retarded that were printed in our university newspaper. Today’s entry will be similar. One of the article’s in today’s edition of “The Sun” is quite misguided, to say the least. While the writer’s heart may have been in the right place, she makes blunder after blunder. While I could send a letter to the editor concerning these mistakes (as I have in the past), I have a feeling that ignorant people would take it the wrong way, and think that I’m racist, or something ridiculous like that.

If you’d like to read the article yourself, it can be found here. But I don’t think that you really have to read it. I can sum it up rather briefly, because it’s not that deep. The author laments about her belief that non-blacks want blacks to just “get over” slavery and move on with their lives. She argues that it would be impossible to get over it because it was such an atrocity. She compares slavery to the Holocaust, and draws what she believes to be parallels. As a result, she facetiously titles the article: “The Holocaust Happened, Get Over It.” Since she believes no one would ask Jews to do this, neither should anyone ask blacks to get over slavery. If you want more specifics, check out the article.

The writer makes a number of mistakes, so it is hard to pick one specific one to begin with, but I suppose it might make most sense to begin by critiquing the intent of the article on the whole. She believes that people want blacks to “get over” slavery, and she equates this to acting like it never happened. Quite simply, I think that this is ludicrous. I do not know any thinking non-black who believes that blacks should act like slavery never happened and just forget about it. What the writer has is a misunderstanding. She thinks that non-blacks want blacks to forget about slavery. What, in fact, most non-blacks would like to see happen is what most blacks today have done: to never forget about slavery and how horrible it was, but to let it remain in a part of their minds forever and move on with their lives in the present and future.

The basic problem is that there is a big difference between remembering the past and dwelling on it. While many, many blacks have moved on, remembering the atrocities of slavery but not dwelling on it, some still dwell. I think one can transparently see that the writer of this article is implicitly saying that justice needs to be served, i.e. that reparations should be given to blacks for slavery. She remarks in parts of the article that slavery was something that the US government sanctioned, so it should take responsibility for this.

Clearly the US government made a mistake with slavery, almost no one would argue otherwise, unless they like wearing pointy white hats. But to say that the government has any duty to rectify this problem some 150 years later is completely absurd, from both legalistic and moral standpoints. Perhaps a good parallel would be to imagine 100 years from now Jews demanding that Germany pay them reparations for the Holocaust. This seems completely implausible.

I don’t want to say too much more about reparations here, because I think that there are few sensible people that think that they are a good idea, so if you’d like for me to debate this with you, let me know. Instead, I’d like to focus on a few other arguments that the article makes. The author also believes that the (false) problem of non-blacks wanting blacks to forget about slavery stems from the fact that non-blacks do not understand slavery. She says that this is different from the Holocaust because people are not able to visualize it as well.

Huh? Why is it easier to visualize concentration camps than it is people being forced to pick cotton and getting whipped if they do not pick fast enough? Why is it easier to visualize corpses being burned but not black women being savagely raped on a daily basis by their “owners”? Why is it easier to visualize people being gassed than a family member being suddenly “sold” and never seen again? Furthermore, why would blacks of the 21st century be able to understand slavery better than non-blacks – certainly none of them are old enough to remember how bad it was. Her point here seems very contrived. If she wants to assert the belief that non-blacks just don’t understand slavery, then she will have to have a better foundation for her claim than this.

She also talks about how the US actively tries to “forget about” slavery by ignoring it in ways which they do not ignore other atrocities like the Holocaust. Her example here is the lack of Oscar wins for movies dealing with slavery like “The Color Purple” and “Amistad” versus “Scindler’s List,” “Life Is Beautiful”, and “The Piano”, which depict times during Holocaust.

I think there are a few problems with this argument. First, the Oscars are just one of many large award venues. The Color Purple actually won at the Golden Globes for Best Actress (Whoopi). The Piano, however, lost Best Actor at the Golden Globes, which it later won at the Oscars. As a result, I would argue that it was fairly arbitrary that slavery movies lost and Holocaust movies sometimes won. I think few people would disagree that usually between the top 3 in every category it becomes a fairly arbitrary process of who actually wins. In other words, any of the 3 best people nominated could win the award. That’s why there are so many surprises every year at these awards ceremonies. What would not be arbitrary is if they were not even nominated, but these slavery movies got a great number of nominations. Of course, the competition that a movie faces is also relevant. For instance, “The Color Purple” lost in 1986 because it was beaten by “Platoon”. “Scindler’s List”, however, did not have nearly as significant competition in 1994.

But the bigger point here is that neither the US government nor the US public gets to choose the winners of the Oscars: The members of the Academy choose. And for her to sit here and say that the members of the academy have some kind of right-wing agenda is the kind of thing that can get someone thrown into an insane asylum, as this group is notoriously left-wing. Like the previous, this point seems very contrived, and she would need to provide better support if she wants people to take it seriously.

Well, she talks a bit more about Americans not wanting to acknowledge slavery and blames it on the fact that it happened on their soil. Now, I do not begin to doubt that the US, on a whole, is quite embarrassed that slavery managed to take place on our soil at one time. I think, however, it is quite another to say that we are trying to re-write history so that it can be forgotten. What I think makes this particularly clear is that the vast, vast, vast majority of citizens currently living in the US had their ancestors immigrate here well after slavery was forbidden by the government. Thus, the only people who would be embarrassed about this would be a very small number of waspy blue-blood types. I know, for instance, that I have absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about, since my ancestors came over from Italy in the early 20th century; we never owned slaves. Why would I try to re-write history that doesn’t affect me? My argument here can be cross-applied to the government as well, because, well, our government has seen a number of generations of change since that time, so none of our current politicians are blameworthy for slavery.

I think I’ve said enough, but I just had to comment on this article, because I find it troubling. I find it troubling that she (and others) would want to dwell on the past rather than look to the future. This is why, at the root of it, the parallels that she draws to Jews and the Holocaust do her thesis more harm than good. Jews do not dwell on the Holocaust. They will never forget it happened, never let it happen again, and work as hard as they can to make their people even stronger than before. This is the attitude that any group who once experienced extraordinary oppression and/or atrocities should have, and for her to suggest otherwise is patently counterproductive.

Today was Easter, and normally I would not write a journal entry related to a given holiday. Okay, maybe I would, since I’ve done it a few times now. But I guess I am going to tonight again, because I noticed something distinct about Easter that I find puzzling.

In the Christian religion, Christmas and Easter are pretty much the two most important holidays, and not many people would disagree with that. In fact, I would argue that Easter is at least as important as Christmas from a religious standpoint, if not more important. Yet, it seems to me like Christmas is a much bigger deal than Easter insofar as people who celebrate them both seem to act.

Obviously, Christmas involves gifts and other such traditions; Easter involves gifts as well, but on a smaller scale and it has the Easter Bunny bringing them instead of Santa Claus. Yes, I know that neither of these characters actually exists, I’m just trying to draw a parallel here, so relax. There are obviously other similarities as well, but there is at least one very distinct difference that I noticed this year: The music.

How many Christmas songs have you heard in your life? Probably too many to count. Yet, how many Easter songs have you heard in your life? I can only name one, maybe. Kinda weird, dontcha think? I mean during Christmas time there is caroling, radio stations that play all Christmas music, Christmas concerts, etc. Easter, on the other hand, has none of that.

For the life of me I can’t figure out why there aren’t more Easter songs. I suppose one reason might be that Christmas celebrates birth, i.e. life, while in some sense Easter commemorates death and celebrates resurrection. Yet, isn’t resurrection fairly parallel to birth? I think the two are at least somewhat similar, and I certainly think that there could be upbeat and popular songs created about the resurrection.

At any rate, I suppose I don’t have much more to say about this, I just find it odd. I guess Easter just gets gypped when it comes to songs, but what can you do? I guess maybe I could be revolutionary and start creating some Easter songs and try to popularize them. But then, I can’t really think of any reason Easter should have more songs. I mean, perhaps the only thing stranger than the fact that this difference between the two holidays exists would be to try to talk about fairness in regard to holidays and argue that Easter should be treated equally when it comes to songs. So I’ll just stop now before things get out of hand.

Today I went to my little cousin’s 6th Birthday party. She had quite the fiesta – they got a huge inflatable water slide, an inflatable pool, a piñata, hamburgers and hotdogs, and of course a lovely cake. I bet every girl in her kindergarten class was there. The cups and plates were “SpongeBob SquarePants” and the background music was Britney Spears. The cake looked good, but alas, I had already eaten my dessert for the month. But of course, I am not planning on talking about the party tonight.

Instead, I’d like to expand upon an interesting observation I made and some consequences of it creates. Well my little cousins are pretty much spoiled rotten. They both have (really nice) TVs in their rooms (ages 9 and 6) and Nintendo 64 connected to them. They have every toy that any kid could want at that age, and I already told you about the kind of party they threw for one of their birthdays. But after sitting there for a few minutes and thinking about all of their stuff, I realized that there is one item that they do not have which most children their age do: a pet.

They don’t have a dog, a cat, a hamster, a ferret, an iguana, a gerbil, a guinea pig, a tarantula, a snake, or a bird; they don’t even have a goldfish. Now, when I was a kid I think there was some sort of pet in my household for most of the time I was growing up. We had a Dalmatian named “Spot” for a while until I think I was about 10, when he died. At various times I also had an iguana, mice, and fish. My brother had a tarantula, a weird South American squirrel (or something), and turtles. There were also probably some others along the way that I fail to recall. Then a few years after Spot died, we got the dog that’s currently in the other room named “Sal”.

So I guess it kind of struck me that, although our household wasn’t exactly the Wild Kingdom, we had pets, and my cousins do not. And of course, this would not be particularly problematic if I did not think having pets while growing up is valuable. But (as you probably guessed) I do think that having a pet is a very good thing for kids growing up.

Having a pet while you’re a kid does a few things. First, it teaches you responsibility. Obviously, it doesn’t teach you responsibility if your parents do all the work. But if you’re the one who has to bath the animal, clean it’s living space, feed it, take care of its bathrooming patterns (what would you call it?), etc. then you’re the one who is in charge of that animal. And believe me, my mom wasn’t about to bath my iguana. Obviously teaching a kid responsibility is good for its own sake, and there aren’t a lot of ways to do it as effectively.

Having a pet can also teach a kid how to live with other things. Okay, some kids share rooms with their brothers or sisters, but these days I think most kids in the U.S. have their own, or at least most kids that I grew up with. And while having a pet in your room isn’t exactly having a roommate, it still can create a situation where you are forced to get used to something living with you, and the problems that it can create. I’m sure I don’t have to spell these problems out for you, but problems such as messiness, smell, noise, and others arise. You’ll notice that these problems are very similar to having a human as a roommate.

Finally, and arguably most importantly, having a pet gives a child the opportunity to begin to deal with and try to understand death. Pets don’t live that long, in general. So when a pet dies, it really troubles the kid who has grown attached to it. But since death is a part of life, I’d argue that learning to deal with it earlier is better than having to deal with it later if you never have. We all took it hard when Spot died, but I think that it probably made the feeling that I felt when my Grandfather died a little less sudden or foreign (though not less intense, obviously).

Now there are surely a few other lessons learned from pets as well, like appreciation for animals, learning to love something other than a family member, etc. But I think that the few I mentioned are more than enough to justify the importance of kids having pets growing up. Maybe (probably) I’m just thinking too much here (as usual), and I might not have convinced everyone of the importance of pets, but I do know this: Although I do not know what kind, my kids will have some pets. Now, if only I can get them to bath them, feed them, clean up after them . . .

The book I’m currently reading is “Paradise Lost” by John Milton. Yes, this is probably the one you’re thinking of: It’s an epic poem that tells the story of the fall of man – you know when Eve ruined it for everyone and Adam was dumb enough to go along with it. Anyway, tonight I’m gonna talk about a part of the poem that I really liked, and copy it for you to read.

Paradise Lost is a very intense epic poem. Milton wrote it in order to maximize dramatic effect and the tragedy of the fall of man. Reading it, it is actually even better than I thought it would be. Epic poems tend to be pretty difficult and sometimes dense reading. I’m not saying that Paradise Lost is a particularly noteworthy exception to this rule, because it pretty much follows it. But it is so well written, that I don’t really mind its difficulty and denseness.

One of the things that impresses me most is Milton’s ability to convey different moods and emotion throughout the poem. I did not want to write too much about this tonight, but to copy twenty-five lines of the poem here for you to see. This section is a complete departure from the mood within most of the poem.

The excerpt below really struck me when I first read it. Most of Paradise Lost is very dark and fairly cold. This isn’t to say that the poetry isn’t beautiful; I’m talking more about the mood. Well, the excerpt below is exactly the opposite. It’s warm and bright; it’s about love; it recounts a sensation that Adam feels for Eve before they are tempted.

To be more specific, in the excerpt below, Adam awakes in the morning before Eve. He enjoys the beautiful morning, but wants his love, Eve, to enjoy it with him. So after thinking about her for a moment, he begins to gently wake her. This occurs at the very beginning of Book V. I think that this except is one of the most beautiful, tender, and effective descriptions of the love that a man is feeling for a woman that I have ever read in poetry.

Now Morn her rosy steps in th’ eastern clime
Advancing, sowed the earth with orient pearl,
When Adam waked, so customed, for his sleep
Was airy light, from pure digestion bred,
And temperate vapours bland, which th’ only sound
Of leaves and fuming rills, Aurora’s fan,
Lightly dispersed, and the shrill matin song
Of birds on every bough; so much the more
His wonder was to find unwakened Eve
With tresses discomposed, and glowing cheek,
As through unquiet rest: he on his side
Leaning half-raised, with looks of cordial love
Hung over her enamoured, and beheld
Beauty, which whether waking or asleep,
Shot forth peculiar graces; then with voice
Mild, as when Zephyrus on Flora breathes,
Her hand soft touching, whispered thus. Awake
My fairest, my espoused, my latest found,
Heav’n’s last best gift, my ever new delight,
Awake, the morning shines, and the fresh field
Calls us; we lose the prime, to mark how spring
Our tended plants, how blows the citron grove,
What drops the myrrh, and what the balmy reed,
How Nature paints her colours, how the bee
Sits on the bloom extracting liquid sweet.