Originally Posted by
fastair
True, relative to an established reference point that is not based on an equitable progression, a change that only impacts 1 of 3 may not seem fair. Based on an absolute point and ratio, this fixes an established inequality. A harsh/extreme comparison, but prior to the 1960's, the established "fairness" didn't give everyone the same rights. Giving equal rights to people of color may not have seemed fair to the whites as their water fountains/restaurants/schools/bus seats were now being used by others, a loss to them. In absolute terms, it fixed an inequality.
One can always debate relative fairness vs absolute fairness. Those that lose out in a correction may feel impugned upon, but stepping back with no frame of previously established reference, one would set a system up using an absolute stating point.
This is simpler than the civil rights acts of the '60s, if only because there is an element of free will involved (each of us chose to join without being coerced). This is about a "loyalty program", with established terms and conditions that one willingly agrees to in order to join. For such a program to be "fair" (in fact, ethical) the T & C that members agree to must be applied and enforced
uniformly. Any [arbitrary] deviation that applies only to a select subset of the membership would be considered "unfair" if it either benefits or disenfranchises some members...
I am not even sure if the concept of
absolute fairness makes sense, in view of the multitude of bases for value judgment (Judeo-Christian, Islamic, Taoist, jurisprudential, etc...). One's reference point would probably be a primary determinant of what is considered "fair", meaning that it is all relative to that reference point. For a "loyalty program" fairness is measured by how uniformly the T & C are applied and adhered to...