George_Weinberg2 comments on The Bedrock of Fairness - Less Wrong

25 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 03 July 2008 06:00AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (102)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: George_Weinberg2 03 July 2008 10:39:18PM 1 point [-]

I see no reason to believe there is such a thing as an objective definition of "fair" in this case. The idea that an equal division is "fair" is based on the assumption that none of the three has a good argument as to why he should receive more than either of the others. If one has a reasonable argument as to why he should receive more, the fairness argument breaks down. In fact, none of the three really have a good argument as to why he is entitled to any of it, and I can't see why it would be wrong for any of the first one to grab it to claim the whole pie under "right of capture".

what's the standard reply to someone who says, "Friendly to who?" or "So you get to decide what's Friendly"?

This is an important question. I don't believe there is such a thing as an objective definition of friendliness, I'd doubt that "reasonable" people can come to an agreement as to what friendliness means. But I'm eager to be proven wrong, keep writing.