Ask someone to what “it” refers, and they’ll generally be shocked by the notion that their words should have referents. When the shock wears off, it will be that “the situation” is unfair, which is a category error. The state of the universe is unfair? Is gravity unfair too? How about the fact that it rained yesterday?
Fairness is a quality of a moral being or rules enforced by moral beings. But there is rarely any particular unfair being or rule enforced by beings behind “it isn’t fair”.
“It isn’t fair” empirically means “I don’t like it and I approve of and support taking something out of someone’s hide to quell my discomfort.”
Inducing guilt in the target of the judgment is not the sole (or even primary) purpose of moral judgment, nor is it a necessary feature. That the target must be capable of experiencing guilt is not a necessary feature either. Do you disagree with any of this?
I am, in general, much more inclined to attribute unfairness to states of affairs than to people. Usually it’s a state of affairs that people could potentially do something to alter/mitigate, though, so I wouldn’t call a law of nature unfair.
In case it wasn’t clear, my comment on the universe felling guilty was my way of pointing out the futility of considering the universe unfair.
But human beings can change states of the universe. Is your point that they will not be motivated to do so if the judgment of unfairness is impersonal?
“It isn’t fair.”
Ask someone to what “it” refers, and they’ll generally be shocked by the notion that their words should have referents. When the shock wears off, it will be that “the situation” is unfair, which is a category error. The state of the universe is unfair? Is gravity unfair too? How about the fact that it rained yesterday?
Fairness is a quality of a moral being or rules enforced by moral beings. But there is rarely any particular unfair being or rule enforced by beings behind “it isn’t fair”.
“It isn’t fair” empirically means “I don’t like it and I approve of and support taking something out of someone’s hide to quell my discomfort.”
I have no problem with referring to states of the universe as unfair.
I’m sure the universe feels terribly guilty about it’s transgression when you do.
Inducing guilt in the target of the judgment is not the sole (or even primary) purpose of moral judgment, nor is it a necessary feature. That the target must be capable of experiencing guilt is not a necessary feature either. Do you disagree with any of this?
I am, in general, much more inclined to attribute unfairness to states of affairs than to people. Usually it’s a state of affairs that people could potentially do something to alter/mitigate, though, so I wouldn’t call a law of nature unfair.
In case it wasn’t clear, my comment on the universe felling guilty was my way of pointing out the futility of considering the universe unfair.
No.
But human beings can change states of the universe. Is your point that they will not be motivated to do so if the judgment of unfairness is impersonal?
It quite often means “I don’t like it and will attempt to change it by the application of social pressure and other means as deemed necessary”.