"Fairness". Pfah!

An equalist appeals to us as to why meritocracy is bad, and we should embrace fairness instead:

"Why is fairness a virtue - that is, why is it inherently good? I do not profess to have the best answer, but I shall share my views through a thought experiment.

Imagine leaving your current dimension and entering a state of non-existence. You have no idea what wealth or resources, material and non-material, you will possess at your point of birth. The only thing you are certain of is your own will - your freedom to choose what you want to do with your possessions, whatever they are.

This is what the American philosopher John Rawls called the veil of ignorance. As you put it on, ask yourself: would you prefer a fair society that rewards traits such as diligence (resulting from free will), by allowing everyone to start on an even playing field, or would you rather have a society that (unfairly) rewards individuals based on, for example, what material resources they possess at birth, something which you lack control over?

The intuitive choice would be the former - the fairer option. Fairness is a virtue because we desire it independently of worldly possessions. It is something that is so appealing to when we are stripped bare of our property and thrown into uncertainty. This is an important frame of mind to view things for a compelling reason: the living consists of only a single generation, while an infinite number of generations exist in exactly that state - unborn. Unlike in the thought experiment, they cannot choose the society they are born into, but we can. Thus, fairness becomes an inherent human endeavor, not just to create a society we desire for ourselves, but for future generations as well."

Let's take this apart piece by piece.

"As you put it on, ask yourself: would you prefer a fair society that rewards traits such as diligence (resulting from free will), by allowing everyone to start on an even playing field, or would you rather have a society that (unfairly) rewards individuals based on, for example, what material resources they possess at birth, something which you lack control over?"

The problem with this is that in order for this argument to hold water, one has to assume tabula rasa, which is a) not only falsifiable but b) the greatest lie of our generation. People are inherently different by virtue of their genetic makeup leading to physical/mental/behavioural/so forth differences demarcated along racial/sexual/so forth lines, and nurture has to work within the bounds set by nature. The author assumes that worldly possessions are the only factor that contribute to success.

The author would like a world to be what ought to be, instead of what is. And in the battle between is and ought, is will always win out in the end.

One might argue that the author is only arguing for equality of opportunity. Yet, as affirmative action and other such "positive discrimination" programs throughout the world prove, equality of opportunity invariably leads to equality of outcome, since opportunity is so nebulously defined and I'll wager the percentage of people who will admit they had every opportunity but blew them will be miniscule.

While the petty man can be uplifted to some extent and whipped into line, the gentleman has far more potential (and by definition of "gentleman", of course he exercises it). Once again, as various "fairness" and "equality" policies prove, they always involve dragging down the gentleman to the level of the petty man, since the latter cannot be uplifted to the level of the former. Hence, Harrison Bergeron.

We lack control over so many things in our lives. We lack control over our genetics, we lack control over how people react to us, we lack control over acts of nature, we lack meaningful control over how our governments act - what, are you going to bitch that you didn't have control over how that guy/girl blew you off? You're dealt a hand, the best thing you can do is play it to the best of your ability instead of coveting someone else's cards.

"Fairness is a virtue because we desire it independently of worldly possessions."

False. "Fairness", more often than not, is driven by envy, most often caused by a lack of worldly possessions. Even in the case of Cappy Cap's crusaders, they take up a cause because their lives are otherwise meaningless and they want to feel important. Psychopathic impulses may be desired by an individual independently of worldly possessions (for example, mass shooters have come from all walks of economic backgrounds in the name of all sorts of ideologies) but that does not make mass shootings a desirable occurrence.

"It is something that is so appealing to when we are stripped bare of our property and thrown into uncertainty."

Here we see the proof of envy showing up. "If I have nothing, other people should give up their stuff in order to make me feel secure!"

In short, "fair" is used in much the same way as "equality" is: a rhetorical platitude used to disguise envy and redistribution. It is intuitive, sure, but then again, even monkeys have been shown to show envy intuitively, so I fail to see how intuitive = good in any sense.

"This is an important frame of mind to view things for a compelling reason: the living consists of only a single generation, while an infinite number of generations exist in exactly that state - unborn. Unlike in the thought experiment, they cannot choose the society they are born into, but we can. Thus, fairness becomes an inherent human endeavor, not just to create a society we desire for ourselves, but for future generations as well."

"B-b-but it's FOR THE CHILDREN!"

Disgusting.

So, to sum up this fellow's argument:

-Look at all those fat cats hoarding all the advantages you should have!
-Appeal to nature (or in this case, intuition)
-If you support fairness, that shows you are so much more enlightened and virtuous because worldly possessions don't matter to you!
-Won't you think of the children?

The implications of the argument are clear: in order for a "level playing field" to be enforced, the wealth of parents should be confiscated and redistributed through taxation so each child has an equal amount of worldly possessions to start with regardless of innate ability or inclination to learn.

Well then. Why bother getting an education in the first place and making all that money if it's just going to be taken away anyway? For a society to prosper, there always needs to be a mild discomfort at the base levels, a hunger to improve, tempered with shame. Redistribution kills that dead.

The worst thing is that redistribution doesn't even solve anything barring the worst-case scenarios (such as dumping a kid in a third-world country). White lower-class students routinely score higher on average on standardised testing than black upper and middle-class students. Head Start in the US has been a tremendous failure, putting paid to the idea that racial differences in IQ and ability were due to nutritional deficiencies. Material wealth and standards of living have been repeatedly shown to have a far less marked effect on intelligence or academic ability than the cathedralists would have the masses believe; "10,000 hours of practice" is scarcely enough, but it perpetuates the pretty lie that you can do anything you want.