Every so often I hear the
phrase, “that’s not fair,” and my automatic reaction is “get over it.” I
suppose the definition of what is fair or not varies for different people. For
me, fairness is not always getting what you desire for what you desire could be
unfair for someone else. Fairness to me, is what is morally right. Due to the
fact that different people have different morals and values, not everyone can
agree with what I have to say about fairness. The human species, the human
mind, and the human in general is such a complex topic.
There is a selfish bias side
to fairness and there is the genuine fairness.
More often than not,
throughout my life I have encountered many people who do not receive whatever
it is they desire or want. In response to their inability to receive their
desired want, is the phrase, “that’s not fair.” To me, this is a selfish and
biased fairness. Always getting ones way, receiving whatever it is they desire
is considered fair for them. Of course this is a biased concept because to them
it is fair that they deserve that they get without thinking of the other party
at hand to whom the situation could be unfair. It’s quite uncanny how if
something goes against the interest of themselves, it is of the bat deemed
unfair. Yet if they get what they desire, another party can declare the result
as unfair.
Morally thinking, there is
only one person in the right and the other person of course deserves the
shorter end of the stick. Theoretically, if one put aside their biases and took
into consideration another’s interests, there clearly is a morally correct
side, the genuine fairness. Genuine fairness lacks a lot in society because a
lot of people are selfish. I blame Darwin’s whole survival of the fitness
concept. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not totally against it, I’m quite a huge
advocate for survival of the fitness myself, but at the same time, I have
certain lines I draw. Especially when my actions are selfish and are morally
unfair to others or affect the rights that were given to one at birth.
To further clarify, my survival of the fitness idea would be if I was faster than another person and was able to snatch the last pair of shoes in a store versus someone who was slower than I, in this case, that absolutely sucks because survival of the fittest allowed me to prevail here. However, if a law banned handicapped people from participating in certain activities, I cannot fully support it. It impedes on their rights and it is discrimination at its finest.
Let’s consider someone on
trial for a murder they did not commit. A genuine unfairness would be getting
convicted and a genuine fairness would be for the trial to be acquitted. In
retrospect of all the wrongly convicted, they felt their lives were unjustly
taken from them. They have spent time in a prison for a crime that they did not
commit. Their rights were violated, the law failed them and the meaning of
“equal justice under law” failed to be applicable to their case. Morally, it is
unfair. How is it fair to send an innocent person away? The law in itself
should be convicting the guilty, not the innocent.
Now, let us consider someone
who did not receive the iPhone 5s for Christmas because they come from a poor
family but their friends come from a rich family and go through phones like
crazy, this person argues constantly with his/her parents trying to develop a
sustainable argument as to why they should get an iPhone 5s when their family
simply cannot afford it. This is selfish, biased, and dubious fairness. The
parents are genuinely unable to afford it, the child wants it because their
friend has it and because it is the current trend. Morally, it is fair to keep
the child from having the phone because the inability to receive the phone does
not morally threaten the rights nor the well being of the child. If the child
won the argument and received the phone, it is unfair to the parents because
they had to sacrifice money in which could threaten the well being of their
family; if you consider the fact the money could have been used for food on the
table, the clothes on the back, the roof over the head etc.
Different people view
different things as unfair. I believe fairness is really applicable to things
that threaten the rights, the life, and the morals of any person. Something as
silly as not getting the iPhone 5s, a Mercedes, or the latest apple product is
just preposterous. These are the things a person needs to suck up. If one
simply cannot afford such materialistic things, then one should go get a job
and generate the necessary amount for the desired item.
Want and need are two
different things. To me, fairness is applied to the need. Get over it if it is
applied to the want. You need something to live. You need your rights, shelter,
clothes, education, food and other things of the like, when these are
threatened, the concept of fair/unfair is applicable. If your wants,
materialistic objects, phones, tablets, and other things of the like are
threatened, the concept of fair/unfair can be applicable, but I think it makes
one a despicable person.
