Fairness is determined by nothing else than unanimous agreement, the consent of each person involved. A dozen eggs may be mutually, agreeably exchanged for $0.89 between person A and person B, then mutually, agreeably exchanged for $0.79 a dozen between person A and person C. Either exchange are no more or less fair than the other, for both exchanges were conducted per unanimous consent. Does person A ethically owe $0.10 to person B? Absolutely not! Would it be nice or generous to charitably give $0.10 to person B? Perhaps it might. Though nicety and generosity are not ethical considerations, nor duty or obligation, and certainly not a basis for law. Duty or obligation if you will, and any sense of being nice or generous, begins by resorting NOT to any form of FORCE privately, socially and politically.
Consequently, person A was quite ethical therefore fair to both persons B and C, for he did not force either to buy his eggs at a higher than agreeable price nor simply steal their money. Persons B and C were equally ethical therefore fair to person A, for they did not force him to sell his eggs at a lower than agreeable price nor simply steal his eggs.
When properly understood, fairness is absolute oppose to arbitrary, consistent oppose to inconsistent hence ethical oppose to unethical, when all refrain from the use of force. In contrast, upon government involvement when properly understood, fairness is arbitrary oppose to absolute, inconsistent oppose to consistent hence unethical oppose to ethical, for always engaged is the use of force.
Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
No comments:
Post a Comment