[blackshoe]

whereagles, on Jun 19 2007, 04:38 AM, said:

there are some perfectly sensible ethical doctrines which do not require fairness. (e.g. utilitarian ethics)

Seems to me that if any ethical doctrine were perfectly sensible, everyone would follow it.

[P_Marlowe]

blackshoe, on Jun 23 2007, 07:20 PM, said:

whereagles, on Jun 19 2007, 04:38 AM, said:

there are some perfectly sensible ethical doctrines which do not require fairness. (e.g. utilitarian ethics)

Seems to me that if any ethical doctrine were perfectly sensible, everyone would follow it.

That assumes everybodies actions are governed by logic,
which is certainly wrong.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

whereagles, on Jun 19 2007, 11:38 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 18 2007, 10:57 AM, said:

Life isn't fair but fairness is still something to strive for, isn't it? Or are you suggesting that life shouldn't be fair?

Fairness is a moral concept. Nature is not aware of it, which might be why it doesn't exist in nature. Unless, of course, you consider equality of all before the laws of physics as fairness.

Whether or not we should strive for it, is debateable. There's a tendency to say "yes", but there are some perfectly sensible ethical doctrines which do not require fairness. (e.g. utilitarian ethics)

Wow, utilitarian ethics applied to zero-sum games. Didn't Umberto Eco write about that in the same book where he described "tropical glaciology" and "dialectical tautology"?

[Badmonster]

blackshoe, on Jun 23 2007, 07:20 PM, said:

whereagles, on Jun 19 2007, 04:38 AM, said:

there are some perfectly sensible ethical doctrines which do not require fairness. (e.g. utilitarian ethics)

Seems to me that if any ethical doctrine were perfectly sensible, everyone would follow it.

You'd think so, but my experience is that most people are pretty strange.

[Fluffy]

barmar, on Jun 24 2007, 12:16 AM, said:

If this "unfairness" bothers you, card games are probably not for you; sports, and games like chess and go would be more appropriate. Duplicate bridge reduces the luck aspect, but doesn't get rid of it completely.

There is luck on everything.

On sports you can run behind because that's your limit and then the runners forward could fall one over each other and give you the victory, or they can get injuried.... (anyone saw women's snowboard last winter olympic games?)

On chess a mistake that goes unnoticed by your opponent might give you a victory, your opponent might also bring the game to a position you have studied the most (but he deosn't know what you studied).

On anything your opponents can also be caught by visitiors from other galaxys the day before playing .

[SoTired]

Another way that luck is in chess. Your opponent makes a bonehead play against you allowing you to win a game against a stronger opponent. Happens all the time. If you get lucky enough, you could win (or do very well in) a tournament without being near the top strongest players. Happened to me once.

BTW - ANOTHER FORM OF BRIDGE: Negative Bridge: Force your opponents to make your contract. For example, if you bid 4H, you must force your opps to take 10+ tricks with hearts as trump. I overheard one top expert say that he thought Negative Bridge requires more skill than regular bridge.

[helene_t]

cherdano, on Jun 18 2007, 07:54 AM, said:

Bridge is unfair. I had all the queens, but my opponents had all the kings and aces, and they took all the tricks! And they even got 100 points for honors!!

My first bridge experience in the Netherlands was at a lesbian bridge club. Someone covered my king with the queen and took the trick. When I objected, she said "it's a feminist bridge club, the queens rank higher than the kings here".

But it turned out to be a joke.