Can you explain why? And if your answer amounts to "because people provide different amounts of [effort|value] to society" how would you reply to "so what?".
> because the stuff they get for existing has to come from someone else.
Your statement doesn't hold unless we assume "it is unfair for one person to provide for the needs of another (unless it is reciprocated)", and it isn't at all clear that we can take that axiomatically.
Even setting to one side the more obvious cases of parents providing for children etc., if we were to assume that one person could, through their labour, provide for the needs of everyone else, why does it obviously follow that it is "unfair" for everyone to survive solely that person's labour?
More generally, it really isn't clear to me that these questions have such simplistic answers.
the axiom is more like "it is unfair to force one person to provide for the needs of another."
obviously some people would disagree, which is their right. however by making this axiom and their disagreements with it explicit, we can discuss the reality of the situation more clearly.
> if we were to assume that one person could, through their labour, provide for the needs of everyone else, why does it obviously follow that it is "unfair" for everyone to survive solely that person's labour?
well would it be fair to force that person to provide for the needs of everyone, if they could do so but chose not to?
> More generally, it really isn't clear to me that these questions have such simplistic answers.
agreed. but discussion can help us to understand the question better, and perhaps if we realize that there is no "right" answer then that conclusion could still help us to create a society where everyone is better off.
I think this seems like a reasonable statement (to me), but unlike for the axiom I provided, the original claim, that "fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair", does not immediately follow from your modified version.
Reading over the various answers people have provided, it seems clear to me that many people follow a similar line of reasoning, trying to argue from the (let's take it as axiomatic) unfairness of forcing someone else to do something, but that really isn't a necessary part of the original claim.
Returning to the extreme example of one person who could provide for everyone, we see this line of argument in your counter-question:
> would it be fair to force that person to provide for the needs of everyone, if they could do so but chose not to?
As we have agreed that it is unfair to coerce someone, the answer is clearly "no", but that isn't the only possibility in our scenario, because they could equally have decided that they do want to work to provide for the needs of everyone.
This (to me) makes it clear that the issue really rests on how this individual (and, in the real world, each member of society) feels about their obligations to others. Yes - if they (or we) have decided not to provide for others, then being forced to do so would be "unfair", but if, on the other hand, they (we) are happy to provide for others without coercion, then there is no apparent source of coercion (certainly not from the axiom you provided).
In short, "fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair" does not follow from your modified axiom, and instead is predicated on the beliefs of the "everyone" in question.
As a somewhat separate issue, some appear to have the impression that these kinds of beliefs are in some way fundamental, but to me it is incredibly clear that they are (at least typically) almost entirely socially contingent. Therefore, as I see it, it is entirely possible for society to shift back and forth between one that (collectively) believes in providing for others, and one that does not, without "coercion" in the sense as used throughout this discussion.
> discussion can help us to understand the question better, and perhaps if we realize that there is no "right" answer then that conclusion could still help us to create a society where everyone is better off
I agree!
It may surprise people to learn that even the Soviets effectively acknowledged the validity of that second statement. According to the 1936 Constitution of the USSR:
"ARTICLE 118. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance With its quantity and quality."
https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04....
Your statement is about motivations, not fairness.
It's not very fair to society as a whole if we implement policies which impede standard of living increases.
Despite others' somewhat antagonistic answers I really just wanted to explore the reasoning behind the original statement, which I think many people instinctively agree with whilst not being able to convincingly explain why (without referencing other ideas).
Effort has a clear opportunity cost which is why I think a lot of people instinctively agree that individuals should be rewarded based on the amount they contribute to the societal pot.
I would suggest that your retort, presuming that is what it is, is mere posturing; either you have a substantive answer to the question or not - so far you have not provided one.
The question isn't whether people are obliged to provide for others, but whether or not it is necessarily unfair for them to do so. Your statement only addresses the former case, not the latter (irrespective of whether it is labelled "the fundamental moral principle of fairness").
sure, let's take a practical exercise and see how you feel about spending your days at cotton fields working for free. Doesn't have to be forever, just a few years, to get a meaningful conclusion about the level of that "necessarily" that you doubt about.
> Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair.
I had asked for an explanation of why this should be so. Your example, "being forced to work in the cotton fields for free", is only rhetoric - it does not actually address the question. There are an infinity of circumstances that would involve "everyone getting the same amount just for existing" that do not involve "being forced to work in the cotton fields", "being forced to work", or indeed "being forced (to do anything)".
I find it interesting that in all the replies to my query, none have really been able to provide anything approaching an answer. The closest (in my opinion) is [0] by aeternum, but that boils down to saying that it is unfair if things don't progress as quickly as they could, but doesn't explain why - this in itself seems pretty radical, when made explicit (hopefully I haven't done too much of an injustice in my paraphrasing). These claims are made boldly, but the rationale seems more difficult to tease out.