You will hear the argument that, if LT doesn’t win a race, this shows that LT’s participation is fair. Joanna Harper has a version of this: what we are after is ‘meaningful competition’ and we have that if the outcome is uncertain... (Thread) 1/
...Both these views are, bluntly, wrong. They misunderstand the nature of sporting fairness. Here’s why: (this is going to be a bit philosophical).
The standard work on fairness is John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice (1971 (2nd ed. 1999) ... 2/
...The crucial distinction that we need is on pp. 73- 76, of the 2nd edn. between, otoh *imperfect/perfect* procedural justice and, otoh, *pure* procedural justice... 3/
...Two examples: First, a murder trial, second a Lottery. Start with the murder trial. This is fair *in some sense* if the defendant is found guilty if he did it, and found not guilty if he didn’t do it. Call this ‘outcome fairness’ 4/
...But it is fair *in another sense* if the rules concerning evidence are followed, witnesses are not coerced, the jury does not look up previous accusations on the internet etc. Call this ‘process fairness.’ ...5/
