People say that life’s unfair, but in reality life cannot be unfair, it can be neither unfair nor fair…at best it is indifferent but it isn’t even this either…no characterization will do life justice. Some people are born blind and some people are…Brad Pitt…millions are spent each year on hocus pocus beauty products that make women’s skin and men’s hair look ten years younger, people seem to be in a constant struggle between who they are and who they want to be. Life’s not fair. Why wasn’t I born with Keira Knightley’s figure or with Olympian athleticism etc. etc. But rather than accepting the inequal distribution of…attributes we resist them instead…plastic surgery and equal rights. the paralympics. In the west we’re led to believe in equal rights…but human laws don’t govern nature, and nature doesn’t believe in equality…or fairness. A baby bird is blown from a tree on a windy day and the cat has easy game. bad luck good luck in one swift gust of wind. Do we intervene or do we let nature run its course?
Indeed. Might as well take an approach that life isn’t and couldn’t be fair by its nature, and deal with it on the basis that at least we can even up the odds of what is a fairly probabilistic existence, with a little bit of effort and maybe some good will.
But surely, if life’s not fair for everyone, then that’s fair.
As with nearly all descriptive language, you must first take into consideration that concepts like “fair” and “unfair” are a direct result of an ever-expanding system of values we (human beings) create for ourselves. Indeed, language is a strange manner of interpretation, especially when used in conjunction with an individual perspective. I would argue that fear caused by uncertainty, or perhaps some inherent need or desire to conceptualize in order to aid “undertanding” (for we can’t control what we do not “understnad”), is the catalyst for this mode of interpretation. An attempt to make the objective world, in some respect, universal so that we can all apply the same core set of values to a concept in order to familiarize (is associating the unknown with the familiar not our primary mode of “understanding”?). A total destruction of these values we create and perpetuate would be necessary in order to see the objective for what it is, and understand it through uncertainty. Though, I can’t see how human existance could be possible in this respect as existance itself seems to force us into conceptualization, and the subsequent application of value to those concepts, in order to grasp a human world built upon human ideas. Everything begins as an idea or “inspiration” - this much is obvious, however aren’t all ideas based upon the presuppositions of ideas that already exist, concepts already conceptualized? The concepts get passed on, but the values placed on them become personalized; thus creating our own personal versions of every idea and all that we “know”.
Epistemology can become near maddening if you dwell on it too long, but my point is that there often seems to lack a certain emphasis on individual perspective in the consideration of what we “know”. Nothhing is universal just as the properties of no two physical objects are exactly alike - basically my opinion is that everything boils down to influence. Everything is influenced, we have even been so bold as to say God is influenced by us. So, taking all of this into consideration, I’d say your idea plays out something like this: Someone experiences a negative influence, becomes succeptible, becomes influened, then becomes conflicted because this negative influence contradicts his own influence that life - as with nature - are controllable, which results in this person influencing you to have sympathy on them by making the brilliant observation that “life is not fair”. Tell him to shut his pie hole, and contemplate hard before he ever speaks again; nobody wants to hear it. Life - like nature - is devoid of concepts, value, emotion, and “reason”; it is unwavering and random in all of its being. That is why we fear it, and that is exactly what makes it beautiful.
Oh, and you forgot one small part - Life is a bitch, you pay bills, and then you die.
Why make this effort to even things out and why is doing so good will?
Although it sounds harsh but why should resources be spent on educating disabled children, resources which are taken away from children with more potential…if thousands are starving in Ethiopia, why help? Why not let nature do its thing, is man a better judge of such things?
Does the evening up of odds result in a better humanity or a worse…a mediocre humanity.
Why do we have words for “fair”, “good”, “justice”? Caring for others is a universal trait, whether confined to family, clan, nation, race or species. Language and society is built to some extent around encouraging this, insofar as they are prescriptive. So in the biological sense, it is nature - we’re social animals, it is inbuilt.
In the other (physical) sense of nature, we have a will that motivates us to change things. Almost every conscious act is a rebellion against letting things fall where they want to fall, flow where they try to flow, erode with wind and water, take the path of least resistance. We eat to gain energy to do work to change the world. In that sense of “letting nature do its thing”, all active sentient animals fight nature. What is so holy about nature? It is incapable of any judgement at all.
There isn’t any humanity at all in the alternative, only species.
No you’re right let’s all just live for ourselves and screw everyone else. 
I don’t think your counter idea is particularly natural either, humans don’t do what you suggest (or at least as a whole) it’s not in their natures.
youre both forgetting something-- we ARE nature. not separate, we are a part and product of nature. one small element of it.
we feel a desire-drive to assist others in need because of mamallian instincts/emotions which encourage empathizing for others, as well as a generalization and sublimation of maternal and sexual instincts, which become social and interrelational.
there is no right or wrong here. no better or worse, outside of our own heads. individually we want to educate blind kids. good for us, it is in our best interests to do so because it is in our best interests to act according to our individual natures. theres no natural “law” that says we must do so, just as there is no law which says we must do otherwise, just as there is no law which says that there are no such laws. “good will” is just as much an illusion as ill will; we dont act according to such things. we create such concepts because they have psychological utility for us individually and, to the extent that we are socialized into common norms and functionings, to us as groups.
arguing whether resources should be spent on this or that has no bearing on ANYTHING at all other than in our own heads. it just doesnt matter to anyone but the humans involved. of course it DOES matter, to those humans of course-- im sure the blind kid wants education just like everyone else. and im sure most of us would “want” that blind kid to get an education, as we are all socialized and biochemically constitued similarly to feel this desire-drive to help others in need. then again some people “want” that blind kid’s resources to go to a nonblind kid, so that they get more “return” on the money, more chance of successful educational results. whatever. both parties believe to some extent their views is right and better. good for them.
but neither is “right” or “wrong”. its all just apples and oranges. everything is.
and certainly from a perspective of “life itself” (“life’s a bitch and then you die”), it doesnt matter. trying to derive meaning or morality out of nature itself is utterly pointless. even deriving an amorality or “disinterested indifference” principle of “nothing matters” is pointless and flawed… things DO matter. they just matter to US, only. there is no need whatsoever to ground or derive our meanings, morals, beliefs, desires on anything “in nature” or in “life itself”, either positively or negatively, nor even as merely a lack thereof.
we create our morals and meanings, WE CREATE THEM, and they ARE relevant… to us. just because they do not extend in any way to anything other than the specific humans involved doesnt demean their reality in any way.
until we realise this crutial fact, we will continue to go around in circles of “does it matter?” “why?” “what’s best”? “life is so cruel!” “no life is fair!” “no its unfair!” etc etc blah blah ad infinitum.
Fairness is as equally distributed as unfairness, total fairness would mean a singular experience. But man has tried to make the world more fair, (he has tried lots of things so why not this) and this has permitted us some inventions, such as sewers, democracy, eugenics. Some of these are radical, others moderate. I think moderate has the more lasting potential. For a radically fair world, sacrifices would have to be made.
You cant make a healthy race with a bunch of dead and gone gene pools, uness you do some serious mixing. The idiot Hitler ruined Europes chance at natural eugenics, Mc Donalds ruined America’s, and now China and Africa have a shot at it. Chinese are better at equal distribution anyway. Everyone gets equally little except those who get eveything. That is how fairness should be doctored, arftifically. Ideally the omnipotent Syndicate will transfer its capital in equal measure to its population and commit suicide.
If you believe in some form of reincarnation or after life, then it becomes “Life’s a bitch then you die, and then you live the life, again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again …” 
Now, you may understand why some people (like followers of certain eastern religions) are so obsessed with the idea of terminating one’s life, COMPLETELY, at all cost. 
That’s a little simplistic isn’t it. Buddhism believes that by attaining Nirvana one is free from the wheel of fate, and can finally experience eternal death, or freedom from the carnal world. Besides it’s not necessarily such a chore, if you have no knowledge of living any past lives. If you did a certain ennui would probably ensue. As it is it’s kind of like only knowing of past life, not having to remember all the experiences which you had before. That would indeed be a sort of hell, like groundhog day! 
It’s interesting conceptually though Western religion seems to idolise a state of eternal bliss that follows an examined and good life, where as Eastern religion seeks to be free of that by achieving bliss on Earth and thus freeing yourself from eternal existence, an existence that sounds very dull. But meh the idea of heaven seems to involve a complete rearrangement of what it means to be human to me. Plus the idea of rolling the dice just once and that’s the only chance you have seems a bit arbitrary. But then I’m a firm believer in nothing.
Zhuangzi politely asks you not to plagiarize him.
life is not fair? lol life is more than fair- it is a blessing - a gift. anyone who says otherwise is in denial until they commit suicide
anyone who says life is no gift is contradicting themselves or their very own nature until they commit suicide
And still I live quite happily - now if I had a penny for every practising catholic in my country who killed themselves!
I suppose life is a gift in one sense - that it is an amazing snatch of something from nothing - an incredible unbelievable coincidence - full of openness error and imperfection.
But if I thought I lived purely at the behest of some all powerful “giver” (or givers!) I’d probably top myself if only to assert freedom and possible piss it/him/her off in a minute way!
kp
anyone who says life is no gift is contradicting themselves or their very own nature until they commit suicide
Are you interpreting “nirvana” as some sort of heavenly state?
Although some Buddhists may think that way, “nirvana” may mean more like “extinction”, and it’s not a state, I’d say.
Well, in that move, you restart as an adult. You don’t have to go through baby thing and all other growing up. And you get to retry the damn same day, again and again. But in eastern type of reincarnation, you usually don’t have the memory and you restart from (nearly) scratch.
I don’t know which you would prefer, though.
Buddhists talk about heavenly existence. The worlds of gods. you may reincarnate into that world. It’s supposedly less complicated than human realm, but you still die and restart in the same realm or in one of the other realms.
So, maybe we can say that Buddhism is for someone who has done enough realm traveling tour and who is already tired or even sick of it, while monotheism is for someone who is still eager to voyage and experience something “better”.
Personally I don’t seem to care so much if the life if a bitch (live once perspective), a nagging bitch (reincarnation perspective), a babe (wonderful life perspective), whatever.
According to Socrate, if you get a babe, you can be happy, and with a bitch (or maybe better with a nagging bitch), you become a philosopher.
I guess he’s right, in a way. I don’t think much when I’m busy with a babe.
Nirvana is freedom from suffering by extension of the self, and is achievable on Earth. I think you are confusing what happens after it has been achieved, ie you are free from the wheel of fate by achieving it. Buddhists don’t have a heaven. I suppose bliss is not really the right term, just ultimate contentment and the freedom from desire. For some odd reason you appear to have confused this state of perfect contentment with heaven or a place, it is found within.
I don’t believe in any of them equally, it’s just Christianities version sounds like a weird drug induced eternal paradise totally alien from human experience, and makes much less sense. Plus its exclusive and arbitrary and some astonishingly good people are excluded. It sounds like an ill conceived place where about 1% of the people who have ever existed will go, and 99.99999% of the interesting people wont. Given the option I’d rather just die and be free like the enlightened Buddhist does.
That makes no sense, in Christianity you only get one turn of the wheel and that’s it, it also means if you are born in a Hindu area in India you are pretty much fucked by being born in the wrong place, so it’s a complete lottery, you only have about a 30% chance of being Christian and thus being saved even. Where as Buddhists at least have many, even infinite opportunities. Buddhists make no comment on what happens after you find enlightenment/Nirvana and die at the end of your life, only that you don’t return to the mortal realm.
Buddhism has no Gods, if they do then it is a corrupted version of the Siddartha’s message. Admittedly some mythologies from other cultures have merged but orthodox Buddhism it is not.
Is repitition a gift, a bitch or a curse?
- ye haw still haven’t done me self in!
kp