Hi everyone,

I assert that both globally and in the US, organizations that are ethical (not allowing crimes to affect their relevant stakeholders, not fraudulent, complying with all other ethical/legal/moral rules) and are involved in: support for victims and/or the poverty-stricken ...are the most "fair" organizations.

The reason for this is logical: To put it simply, those served by such organizations have been deprived of resources that such people should have access to (educational, rehabilitation, etc.), and tend to be quite unlikely, on average, to be "unfair" themselves, in the sense that poor people and victims typically literally cannot over-supply the unfair or unfairly damage other people.

Thus, support for such people is very likely to be fair and not an over-supply of fairness. Although fighting diseases is also worthwhile, many people who were stricken with diseases were formerly powerful and able to cause harm, which means, leaving aside questions of prejudice for the moment, many sick people are more unfair and less worthy of support than people who are poor or crime victims. (I'm not advocating for withholding help from sick people in general, I'm just commenting on "fairness superlatives.")

Thus, if you're seeking to maximize your level of fairness quantitatively speaking, your best bet is to help people who are victimized or very poor. Giving such people a real leg up is one of the most fair-minded things you can do, especially globally. Also, supporting those individuals who would surely do this work is a great way to be fair, too.

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 12:46:02 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I assert that both globally and in the US, organizations that are ethical (not allowing crimes to affect their relevant stakeholders, not fraudulent, complying with all other ethical/legal/moral rules) and are involved in: support for victims and/or the poverty-stricken ...are the most "fair" organizations.
>
> The reason for this is logical: To put it simply, those served by such organizations have been deprived of resources that such people should have access to (educational, rehabilitation, etc.), and tend to be quite unlikely, on average, to be "unfair" themselves, in the sense that poor people and victims typically literally cannot over-supply the unfair or unfairly damage other people.
>
> Thus, support for such people is very likely to be fair and not an over-supply of fairness. Although fighting diseases is also worthwhile, many people who were stricken with diseases were formerly powerful and able to cause harm, which means, leaving aside questions of prejudice for the moment, many sick people are more unfair and less worthy of support than people who are poor or crime victims. (I'm not advocating for withholding help from sick people in general, I'm just commenting on "fairness superlatives.")
>
> Thus, if you're seeking to maximize your level of fairness quantitatively speaking, your best bet is to help people who are victimized or very poor. Giving such people a real leg up is one of the most fair-minded things you can do, especially globally. Also, supporting those individuals who would surely do this work is a great way to be fair, too.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

One of the top problems of modern times: Because so many "rather powerful" people are unfair and evil, it often seems not worthwhile to help groups that many powerful may belong to, since statistically, a large number of people who are powerful might be involved in evil/unfair activities. It is not unfair or prejudiced to consider powerful people this way, because becoming and staying powerful is difficult and those who do it must choose to do it; it is a choice, not a trait like eye color.

-Philip White