Interesting application of this framework. Indeed, social rules can be binding and constraining, but they coordinate our expectations and actions in ways that do not need to be renegotiated in each new situation. One of the pitfalls of the idealistic view that we can simply drop rules because they are constraining is that it leads to the type of situation you describe, where everything has to be renegotiated.
In fact, to the extent that rules implement a split of the gains from cooperation, stating that these rules are unnecessary is already a move towards renegotiating rights and duties in favour of some and to the disadvantage of others. The case of polyamory, often favoured by the male partner, might raise a similar question to the one feminists asked in the 1970s about who benefited more from the sexual revolution. As Linda Phelps put it then, “Sexual freedom has meant more opportunity for men.”
Hence, because dropping a rule is already pushing for a renegotiation that shifts the balance of rights and duties in one direction, everything then has to be renegotiated without the previous shared understanding of what is fair and what is not. Fairness itself has to be renegotiated. Behind each of the situations you describe, there is an implicit standard of respect for each participant’s preferences that is itself being negotiated. This is also what makes such situations so “high drama”.
This is a great series, discussing Binmore’s framework of moral evolution with consideration of social power relationships.
Life is not fair. But that doesn’t mean life is unjust, if justice is the avoidance of injustice. Where injustice is based on human action (including inaction). The “justice system” can only punish those who have acted unjustly, been unfair.
Sadly, fairness is used as a synonym for justice, which is clear when looking at human beauty. Some people are more beautiful than others, and it’s not fair, but there’s no justice system which can equalize the outcomes. A Harrison Bergeron regime of making the lovely folk put on ugly making make-up & clothes is a possible system, but one that is unjust.
The claim that “natural rights are nonsense” is falsified by the evolution of fairness, based on ideas like natural rights. The changes in society follow certain ideas, and ideas that cause changes are, because of the changes, not nonsense. Marxist socialist ideas are unsustainable and wrong, yet are not nonsense.
Sustainability is the right criteria for evaluating the fairness balance negotiations. Thus I judge America’s Life, Liberty, & Propriety 1776 ideas as better, and more important, than the French Fraternity, Liberty, Equality (& the American Revolution as more important).
A key weakness I feel is the inability to know if the current balance really is on the efficient frontier. Tho focus on improving everybody, Pareto optimally, is the right goal.
With Musk becoming the world’s first trillionaire, there’s a huge amount of politicians demonizing him, calling him immoral, for being so successful. The critics are mostly wrong, but there’s no justice is a huge truth that such vast wealth, fairly (followed the rules!) earned, nevertheless depends on the majority accepting the results, in comparison with other possible govt arrangements.
Is he paying his fair share in taxes? Or the optimal? I think not quite. The after tax income of the median worker should be rising at a level equal to or greater than the top decile, 90%. That’s my own articulation of a fair tax & spend system (alternative?).
Reminds me of one of the reasons I think polyamory leads to massively more drama than monogamy:
"there are no defaults people can fall back to, so there’s room for disagreement and fighting constantly.
Imagine every time you started or ended a relationship, you had to establish every social norm from scratch.
Is it OK for partner to have sex with your best friend?
Is it OK to kiss somebody else in front of your partner?
What about them having sex in your bed when you're out of town?
Is it OK to have sex with another person then tell your partner the details?
Is your partner allowed to bring his lover to Christmas with your family? What about your kid’s birthdays?
If your partner’s lover is having a mental health breakdown, is it OK for your partner to go comfort her when it’s your day with him?
The list is endless, and so will your arguments about it.
That really is so much of poly.
Just so many emotionally fraught conversations."
Full post here: https://katspartz.substack.com/p/why-i-think-polyamory-is-net-negative
Interesting application of this framework. Indeed, social rules can be binding and constraining, but they coordinate our expectations and actions in ways that do not need to be renegotiated in each new situation. One of the pitfalls of the idealistic view that we can simply drop rules because they are constraining is that it leads to the type of situation you describe, where everything has to be renegotiated.
In fact, to the extent that rules implement a split of the gains from cooperation, stating that these rules are unnecessary is already a move towards renegotiating rights and duties in favour of some and to the disadvantage of others. The case of polyamory, often favoured by the male partner, might raise a similar question to the one feminists asked in the 1970s about who benefited more from the sexual revolution. As Linda Phelps put it then, “Sexual freedom has meant more opportunity for men.”
Hence, because dropping a rule is already pushing for a renegotiation that shifts the balance of rights and duties in one direction, everything then has to be renegotiated without the previous shared understanding of what is fair and what is not. Fairness itself has to be renegotiated. Behind each of the situations you describe, there is an implicit standard of respect for each participant’s preferences that is itself being negotiated. This is also what makes such situations so “high drama”.
This is a great series, discussing Binmore’s framework of moral evolution with consideration of social power relationships.
Life is not fair. But that doesn’t mean life is unjust, if justice is the avoidance of injustice. Where injustice is based on human action (including inaction). The “justice system” can only punish those who have acted unjustly, been unfair.
Sadly, fairness is used as a synonym for justice, which is clear when looking at human beauty. Some people are more beautiful than others, and it’s not fair, but there’s no justice system which can equalize the outcomes. A Harrison Bergeron regime of making the lovely folk put on ugly making make-up & clothes is a possible system, but one that is unjust.
The claim that “natural rights are nonsense” is falsified by the evolution of fairness, based on ideas like natural rights. The changes in society follow certain ideas, and ideas that cause changes are, because of the changes, not nonsense. Marxist socialist ideas are unsustainable and wrong, yet are not nonsense.
Sustainability is the right criteria for evaluating the fairness balance negotiations. Thus I judge America’s Life, Liberty, & Propriety 1776 ideas as better, and more important, than the French Fraternity, Liberty, Equality (& the American Revolution as more important).
A key weakness I feel is the inability to know if the current balance really is on the efficient frontier. Tho focus on improving everybody, Pareto optimally, is the right goal.
With Musk becoming the world’s first trillionaire, there’s a huge amount of politicians demonizing him, calling him immoral, for being so successful. The critics are mostly wrong, but there’s no justice is a huge truth that such vast wealth, fairly (followed the rules!) earned, nevertheless depends on the majority accepting the results, in comparison with other possible govt arrangements.
Is he paying his fair share in taxes? Or the optimal? I think not quite. The after tax income of the median worker should be rising at a level equal to or greater than the top decile, 90%. That’s my own articulation of a fair tax & spend system (alternative?).