BothAndBlog Forum

Is the real world fair and just?
Gnomon

I added the word "real" to the title of this thread in order to eliminate an ideal Heavenly realm from consideration. Some people, when faced with the moral ambiguity and uncertainty of personal or world events --- especially when bad things happen to good people --- will express the belief or hope that "everything happens for a reason"*1. And they don't seem to be concerned that the "reasons" & purposes motivating Cause & Effect are seldom obvious, and must be taken on faith.

The topical question was raised in my mind by an article in Skeptical Inquirer magazine (vol48), authored by psychologist Stuart Vyse, in his discussion of Skepticism and tolerance for Uncertainty, as illustrated by movie plot spoilers. In his preface, Vyse noted that "religious and spiritual beliefs promote the assumption that the universe is fair". Then, he adds, "they find solace in the belief that they will be made whole in this life or the next". Perhaps, a non-Christian source of solace is the Eastern religious concept of Karma : that Good & Evil acts in this life will be morally balanced in the next incarnation. Ironically, both approaches to a Just World seem to accept that the real contemporary world is neither fair, nor balanced. As Vyse summarizes : "The universe has no interest in your success or failure, and things don't happen for a reason --- they just happen". For example, the current hurricane in the Caribbean is indiscriminately destructive. But is the obvious bad stuff offset by punishing an evil group of people : e.g. Jamaican politicians, oligarchs and landlords ; while poor innocent Jamaicans are just collateral damage? Are blessings & curses proportional?

Although I'm not comforted by scriptural assurances that "all things work together for good", I do infer a kind of Logic to the chain of Cause & Effect in the physical world --- and an overall proportional parity between positive & negative effects. Of course, that mathematical & thermodynamic symmetry may not always apply to the personal & cultural aspects of reality : to people's feelings about those effects. I won't attempt to prove that vague belief in balance, but it seems that philosophers have always been divided on the question of a Just World*2. Plato was not conventionally religious, but he argued from a position which assumed a Rational*3 First Cause, that he sometimes referred to as Logos*4. That philosophical principle was not necessarily concerned about the welfare of individuals, but only that the world proceed in an orderly manner toward some unspecified teleological end point. Rational humans are able to detect the general organization & predictability of physical events, and often refer to the regulating principles as Laws --- as-if imposed by a judicious king. Ironically, modern science has detected some essential Uncertainty at the foundations of Physics. So, we can never know for sure what's-what & where & when.

I get a sense that this forum has some moralists who feel that the physical world is morally neutral, yet organized human societies should be scrupulously fair & balanced toward some ideal of Justice ; and some amoralists or nihilists who think its all "just one damn thing after another" ; plus perhaps some nameless positions in between. Since my amateur position typically falls in the muddled middle, and as part of my ongoing education in philosophical thinking, I'd like to hear some polite, non-polemic, pro & con discussion on the topical question.


*1. Everything Happens for a Reason :
Firstly, it can be used to suggest that there is a cause-and-effect explanation for why something has happened. Secondly, and more commonly, it is often used to suggest that there is some greater purpose or meaning for what has happened which is determined by fate, a higher power, God, or the universe.
https://12stepphilosophy.org/2024/03/30 ... -a-reason/

*2. Just World :
The just-world hypothesis refers to our belief that the world is fair, and consequently, that the moral standings of our actions will determine our outcomes. This viewpoint causes us to believe that those who do good will be rewarded, and those who exhibit negative behaviors will be punished.
https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/just-world-hypothesis

*3. Rational :
Synonyms: sagacious, judicious, wise, intelligent.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rational

*4. LOGOS :
By using the term logos, he meant the principle of the cosmos that organizes and orders the world that had the power to regulate the birth and decay of things in the world. The cosmos was, as he saw it, constantly changing, and he conceived logos as the organizing principle of change.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Logos

No. — Tom Storm

Quite succinct, and non-polemical. But I was hoping for some why or why-not discussion, that I could learn from. You could take your pick of a few comments or quotes that will illustrate a philosophical position or principle. For example, "No" could be construed as Nihilist. But is that just an emotional feeling, or a reasoned philosophical position, or a theory of how the world works? Please notice that I omitted a heavenly element from consideration.

I have encountered no reason to superimpose a philosphy or religion upon this in order to make its seem less appalling. — Tom Storm

Isn't that what philosophers have always done : to superimpose a reasoned worldview upon the myriad & contradictory details of the world we are "thrown" into? To make sense of what we sense ; to justify what seems unjust? To catch what is thrown at us, and throw it back with intention? To make choices that are not imposed upon us?

This is a tricky kind of causality to contemplate. It is not the reductionism of "cause and effect". But it was already where metaphysics started with Anaximander and his pre-socratic cosmology. . . . .
And then we get to the vexed issue of good and evil. Which is problematic because it replaces the complex systems causality of the natural world with the polarised story of a cause and effect world. A mechanistic viewpoint. Instead of a pair of actions that are complementary – as in a dichotomy or symmetry breaking – we have just a single arrow from a here to a there. There is a high and a low, a good and a bad, a wonderful and an awful. There is a place to leave behind and a place to approach. — apokrisis

Yes. If we wake-up one day and find ourselves in a world of simple positives & negatives --- warm milk vs warm urine --- as helpless babies all we can do is cry that "this wet diaper is appalling". But over time, we learn to take the ups & downs of life with self-help philosophical equanimity. The mature world is no longer Good vs Evil, but a nuanced environment that can be managed by rational actors into a worldview where we can look forward to waking up tomorrow in a familiar place with new challenges to manage. "A place to leave behind, and a place to approach".

Although I'm quite surprised by this, in a pleasant manner I'll add, I here fully endorse Banno's laconic answer (thought doubtless we'll differ on the ontological details):
Only if we make it so. — Banno — javra

That is also my own facile answer to this thread's title question. The physical universe is not a God to be held responsible for my personal flourishing or perishing. Instead, the world in which I live & act is an amoral (neutral) context for my own moral choices. So, if I want the world to be more Good and less Evil, it's my job as a moral agent to attempt to "make it so". Unfortunately, as you noted, our personal Utopia votes are seldom unanimous ; because we all "differ on the ontological details". Hence, the necessity for a moderate philosophical attitude toward the extremes of Good & Evil.

Good~evil is tarred jargon as it does speak to the simplicities of reductionist models of causality. But we can sort of get what the terms are getting at from a systems perspective and its ecosystem style, richness constructing, hierarchical complexity. — apokrisis


Good vs Evil is indeed a religious concept, often expressed in dualistic terms of Gods and Devils. But the OP was not asking about such a two-value reductionist model. In the title, the question is about "Fair & Just", which are evaluations of the whole world from a "why me?" personal perspective. When Vyse noted that "religious and spiritual beliefs promote the assumption that the universe is fair", the premise seems to be that the moral playing ground is not tilted in favor of the black or white team. In other words, the game of life is not rigged. So, each of us can expect to get our "just deserts" : punishment for wicked acts, and blessings for virtuous behavior. To a secular philosopher though, it should be obvious that Nature is fair & balanced only in the sense that it has no agenda pro or con "poor little me".

However, some who say "everything happens for a reason" seem to believe that --- although the natural world does not reward or punish --- its equitable system of actions & reactions*1 at least gives each of us a fighting chance to get what we deserve. Yet, when our personal experience implies that we don't get our Just Deserts, some may look for a super-natural force to blame, or to petition. For example, monotheistic religions originally had only a single universal Cause for every Effect. So, a duality had to be invented : an imaginary adversary who opposed the "perfect" works of the Good God. The polytheistic Pagans though, had a slightly different explanation for the imperfections of the Logos-designed world : an inferior demi-god to be held responsible for any defects. Either way, the dualistic worldview tends to portray the universe as a battleground of praiseworthy Good vs reproachable Evil.

On the other hand, I'm inclined to interpret your "systems perspective" in terms of philosophical Holism. Which is not a reductive Either/Or analysis, but an all-things-considered frame of reference. When viewed as a unique system, the Cosmos is neither Good nor Evil, but morally neutral. So, it's the personal perspective that judges general causality from a local point of view : "why me?". However, some philosophical systems, such as Stoicism and Buddhism, advise taking a more Holistic view of whatever happens : "why not me?" Instead of praising or condemning the gods for picking me for pain, or not protecting me, I must learn to deal equitably with both pain and pleasure, both Good and Evil. From that "systems perspective", in which I am merely a cog in a big wheel, the world is Fair & Just, in the sense that I am not singled-out, but an integral part of the whole system. Fortunately though, we humans are moral agents, who have the power to design a sub-system of our own : an ethical society, which is intended to be Fair and Just. Given more time, perhaps we --- moral agents collectively --- will be able to evolve our own little whole/hale/healthy Utopia, where Peace & Justice reign on Earth.


*1. Proportional Action and Reaction :
Newton's third law simply states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
https://spacecenter.org/science-in-acti ... of-motion/

In a perfect world, that might look rather like social democracy. — apokrisis

Isn't that the role of Philosophy, to deduce both the Good and the Bad aspects of the Real and Cultural worlds, and to devise a new more Ideal social system that will be better for A> those who seek justice, or B> those who seek power? Perhaps to emulate Nature in its physical perfecting tool : survival of the fittest, by means of competitive selection. Or to discover a new metaphysical tool for increasing moral fitness.

Unfortunately, as Marx noted, the thinking philosophers usually leave the implementation of their Utopias to doing politicians, who tend to sort themselves into dueling dualistic categories, such as Liberals and Conservatives, or Nationalists and Communists. What can we learn from the failures of either/or political paradigms?

Karl Marx politics :
“The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways,” he famously said. “The point, however, is to change it.”
https://blog.apaonline.org/2021/04/29/t ... the-world/

To which I might only add that ethics may be of more help here than physics. For while physics tells us what is the case, ethics acknowledges that we might well make things otherwise. — Banno

We may even gain some philosophical insights from Biology. My latest blog post is entitled : Synchrony : Small World Networks*1. In 1926, during the heyday of Quantum Physics, biologist Jan Smuts*2 intuited the general principle of Holism as an organizing force in biological Evolution. His acumen was immediately recognized by those who later became labeled as "New Agers". But it was overshadowed by the Atomic bomb builders, until the 21st century emergence of Complexity, Systems and Information sub-disciplines of science. As illustrated in the Oppenheimer movie, physics sans ethics can solve a temporary technical problem, but create an even greater moral dilemma.

Even Democratic politics, as currently practiced, is inherently us vs them dualistic. And a second American civil war is in the wind. But, are we ready for a more Holistic form of government? Will obedient robots, or common-sense-less AI do better than willful & selfish humans at self-government? Sigh! Idealistic Ethics has always been too feckless to overcome the predator/prey pragmatism of Politics. “We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.” — Martin Luther King, Jr.


Gnomon reply to ↪apokrisis
:
Fortunately though, we humans are moral agents, who have the power to design a sub-system of our own : an ethical society, which is intended to be Fair and Just. Given more time, perhaps we --- moral agents collectively --- will be able to evolve our own little whole/hale/healthy Utopia, where Peace & Justice reign on Earth.

*1. Small World Networks
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page24.html

*2. Jan Smuts :
Albert Einstein counted Smuts as one of approximately ten people that truly understood his theory of relativity.
https://www.politicsweb.co.za/news-and- ... considered

↪apokrisis
Well, I suspect that ↪Gnomon will go along with your scientism. Of course, I don't think it is I who is not in the game. You do not appear to even see the ethical considerations. But my posts only elicit more spit. — Banno

I don't want to get in the middle of a spitting contest. But I'll point out that ↪apokrisis's discussion of Ecology hardly qualifies as materialistic "scientism". Ecology does have practical applications, but its primary consideration is ethical & holistic*1 : the universe is more than an aggregation of objects & forces. For us earthlings, it's also an association of beings.

Regarding the ethical status of our world, Oughts and Values -- fair & just -- are not physical things to be studied by material scientists, but philosophical concepts that may even guide the investigations of biological scientists. It typically views the world as a holistic interactive integrated system. In which, only a few species are capable of ethical considerations. That's why homo sapiens are often viewed as the caretakers of non-human world*2 : the arbiters of fairness & justice.

The topical question of Fairness & Justice was not referring to the material world, as some have erroneously assumed. Instead it's about the "world" as an Ethical System of sentient beings. FWIW, I value the calm & rational inputs of both Banno and Apo.


*1. Ecological Ethics :
Ecological (or environmental) ethics is the study of what humans, individually and corporately, ought to value, ought to be, and ought to do in relationships with all other beings and elements in the biosphere.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/ ... ogy-ethics

*2. Who is the caretaker of the world?
Every generation serves as caretaker of this world | Secretary-General : United Nations in India.Apr 17, 2024



How does it make sense to ask which of these is in thermodynamic equilibrium? — Banno

The physical analogy between a Fair & Just distribution of social states, and thermodynamic equilibrium (balanced measure) is a philosophical metaphor, not to be taken literally.

Why do people use the term, 'Equal' instead of the proper term, 'equilibrium'?
Equilibrium is the balance of dynamic interaction—when the interactions being measured become “equal”.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-use ... quilibrium
Equilibrium : a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

JUSTICE IS BALANCED : psychically, not physically
Justice-001.png

I am religious, but don’t actually believe that this means that a eventually just world is determined even if everything happens for a reason. — Igitur

Yes. Modern religions still preach hope for perfect justice, but may no longer teach that piety will be immediately rewarded with peace and prosperity. Instead, believers should expect to suffer patiently --- in some cases for a lifetime --- buoyed by their faith in an Ideal-but-remote place & time, and a non-physical body. Even though secular laws have reasoned that "justice delayed is justice denied".

Most world religions propose some solution to the obvious & pervasive injustices of this material & temporal world : "vale of tears". In the Old Testament for example, justice was not to be expected in a heavenly afterlife, but in a society governed by the miraculously-revealed laws of God. Since that earthly society, Zion, a "city set on a hill", was repeatedly deconstructed by invaders --- sent by God to punish the Chosen People --- the notion of a heavenly city of refuge emerged. After the Jewish Messiah was crucified by another set of foreign invaders, an offshoot sect of Gentiles changed their expectations from Justice in this world and this life, to a spiritual world and an immortal life. Moreover, the divine "reason" why bad things happen to good people, was blamed on an Evil god, who foiled & frustrated the best-laid plans of the Good god. Since then, the real space-time world has been re-imagined, not as a god-designed Paradise, or a god-governed city-set-on-a-hill, but a battle-ground of constant warfare between heavenly hosts and demonic hordes.

In the book of Job, that faithful sufferer of divine injustice was ridiculed by his neighbors, who espoused a Just World theory*1. Even today, when historically dominant traditional religions have splintered into more than 45,000 sects*2 around the world, hope & faith in a Just World survives. In the US and Latin America, "The just world fallacy*3 is commonly seen in theologies with some form of worldly reward system, such as in Prosperity Gospel beliefs." So, in the face of real world injustice, hope & faith abide, that God would never allow his truly faithful followers to suffer. After several millennia of faith & works religions though, human societies seem to be no closer to the prophesied Just World. Clearly, the old moral laws inscribed in stone, have failed to produce an ideal society of god-fearing people. So, they have been reinterpreted, mostly by Paul, to be only a temporary pale imitation of the heavenly world-to-come in an unspecified future resolution to the perennial injustice problem.



*1. Job's Justice :
It addresses theodicy (why God permits evil in the world) through the experiences of the eponymous protagonist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job

*2. Disunity of Religious Beliefs :
Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. and a staggering 45,000 globally, according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity.
https://www.livescience.com/christianit ... tions.html

*3. Just World Fallacy :
The just world fallacy, also known euphemistically as the just world hypothesis, is a naturalistic fallacy that states that the consequences of all actions are predictable and deserved. This implies (although sometimes only subconsciously) a belief in some sort of universal force that ensures moral balance in the world, in such a way that a person who exhibits good and moral behavior will eventually be rewarded, while evil and immoral actions will eventually be punished. It is both a concept in theology and considered to be a cognitive bias in psychology. It is summed up by the phrase "What goes around, comes around."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_world_fallacy