Is there such a thing as a fair advantage?

[One Bad Pig]

Why or why not?

(This question prompted by the discussion here over bed-time reading being an "unfair advantage.")

Discuss.

[Epoetker]

Fairness is a human quality. There are no fair advantages. There are only fair competitors. But that only begs the question: Is life a game? And who would we rather have win?

[Cow Poke]

Whenever somebody says "fair", I immediately ask "fair to whom?"

[One Bad Pig]

Is "unfair advantage" then a tautology?

[Zymologist]

Is "unfair advantage" then a tautology?

In the way that both words seem to be generally used in this context, it would seem to be.

[Sparko]

It is a fair advantage if I have it. It is an unfair advantage if I don't.

[Sam]

Why or why not?

(This question prompted by the discussion here over bed-time reading being an "unfair advantage.")

Discuss.

Yes; one can imagine a scenario where two people equal at a starting point are unequal at a finish point, due entirely to one person's extra effort, all else being equal.

Of course, it's much more useful to ask whether advantages can be "more or less" fair or, even better, to analyze systemic or structural unfairness to determine whether a given unfair advantage is justified by another compelling purpose, necessary for some important aspect of society, etc. That's the thrust of the source article of the other thread, trying to create a framework that allows those more pragmatic analyses of fairness.

[Teallaura]

Why or why not?

(This question prompted by the discussion here over bed-time reading being an "unfair advantage.")

Discuss.

An advantage that is not obtained or used unfairly would be properly referred to as a 'fair advantage'.

[pancreasman]

How about 2 athletes in a competition. One trains and one does not. We would say the guy who trained had a fair advantage.

[Teallaura]

How about 2 athletes in a competition. One trains and one does not. We would say the guy who trained had a fair advantage.

Unless the rules forbade training.

[pancreasman]

Unless the rules forbade training.

Yes, your post was right. As long as what you do is within the rules, it is a fair advantage.

[Darth Executor]

Yes; one can imagine a scenario where two people equal at a starting point are unequal at a finish point, due entirely to one person's extra effort, all else being equal.

Why is an advantage gained entirely due to one person's extra effort fair? After all people don't choose their personalities either.

Of course, it's much more useful to ask whether advantages can be "more or less" fair or, even better, to analyze systemic or structural unfairness to determine whether a given unfair advantage is justified by another compelling purpose, necessary for some important aspect of society, etc. That's the thrust of the source article of the other thread, trying to create a framework that allows those more pragmatic analyses of fairness.

Why does an unfair advantage need to be justified in the first place?

[Mountain Man]

Affirmative action. (At least according to the left.)

[Paprika]

How about 2 athletes in a competition. One trains and one does not. We would say the guy who trained had a fair advantage.

High-class athletic competitions generally involve statistical deviants, those that gain an exceptional advantage due to their genetics.

[JimL]

Why or why not?

(This question prompted by the discussion here over bed-time reading being an "unfair advantage.")

Discuss.

There is no such thing as a fair advantage, an advantage means that the advantaged start on an unequal footing. In that respect, life is not fair in that we are not all born equal. But two people could be born with equal abilities and yet the one may have an unfair advantage than the other due to the circumstances they are born into. If you just happen to be born to parents who are educated and wealthy, then you would have an unfair advantage over another who is born to parents who are uneducated and poor.