I recently came across a discussion on the site
BoardGameGeek where a game developer was complaining about some ratings of his game which he believed to be "unfair." It raised an interesting discussion about what it means to be "fair" or "unfair."
In many instances it seems like it should be pretty straight-forward to determine what is fair. One user posted the example of dividing a cookie in a way that many people are familiar with. He said:
Letting one person split the last cookie and the other person pick which half they want is fair.
Letting the splitter do the picking is not fair.
This seems self-evident. If Person A is allowed to both split the cookie and choose which half of the cookie to eat, what is there to prevent Person A from making one part really big and choosing that part? If, on the other hand, Person B is going to choose which part to eat, Person A is motivated to divide the cookie as evenly as possible, lest he or she be stuck with a smaller portion.
One insightful individual, however, posted this response:
In the second example, one person will complain about the result because they don't like it.
But if you mean fair as in its the "right" thing to do... Well, why should the cookie automatically be split 50/50? Shouldn't the person who made it or bought it get a bigger share? Or if it's a small child and an adult, shouldn't the adult get a bigger share (based on body mass, how much they burn calories and how much sugar is good for them)? Even if the two are simply children being given a cookie by their mom, shouldn't the child who has been better behaved, or who has done his chores, or whatever other measure you want to use to determine who has earned it, get the bigger share? Or if the children have different preferences, where one likes chocolate chips a lot but the other doesn't really like them much at all, shouldn't the child who wants the cookie more, or appreciates the cookie more, get a bigger share? And why are they the only ones getting a share? Shouldn't they let the girl next door have some too? Or maybe they should offer some to the homeless man across town who hasn't eaten today.
There is no fair. There is no objective "right" course of action. No matter what you decide to do, there will be those who like what you've chosen and call it fair, and those who do not and call it unfair. No matter what you do, we can find an argument that claims it wasn't fair. If you believe that you know what fair means, you're under an illusion.
This was very eye-opening to me because I also thought that the scenario of splitting the cookie was one that was easily declared "fair."
I think that we sometimes like to put God in a similar situation when we are complaining about something that does not seem "fair" to us. We eliminate all sorts of variables or considerations and explain how in our situation, God is "obviously" not being fair. If we widen our perspective, it may be more fair than we realize. But even then, I do not know that everything needs to be fair in God's eyes.
He may just shake His head when He sees one child in a first world country complaining about how another was given a promotion or some other benefit that the first child wanted. Compared to the situation of billions of His other children, what both of them have is "unfair" and should be taken away.
But I do believe that God is Just. I believe that He loves His children. And I believe that what happens to us, for good or ill, will be for our benefit if we will let it.
In that sense, what is "fair" has more to do with what we do with a situation than the situation itself. Was it "fair" for Joseph to be sold into Egypt by his brothers? Does it matter?
Source:
BoardGameGeek