I am of the belief that the principle of fairness in human behavior has lost much of its importance in recent years and that its very definition has changed within human discourse. In the past I have thought that, in order to be deemed fair, human negotiations needed to be conducted in a way that minimized conflict and encouraged compromise.

My self-respect has required that I think of myself as a fair person. Now we can each observe increasingly extreme and unchallenged ideas almost daily as we access the news.

Over the last few years, the behavior and observed negotiations of my fellow humans has caused me to doubt the continued existence of “fairness.” I am hoping that noting this change is not merely a product of my idealism. If my observation is accurate and fairness as a motivation for compromise is disappearing, then we need to question the continued presence of an ordered society and, possibly, the continued existence of humankind.

Why am I experiencing this change? Recent national and international events are clearly involved. The most disheartening and major ones include the invasion of Ukraine and the horrible effects on its population, former President Trump’s unpunished behavior leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, the failure to adequately address climate change, and the continued ineffectual debate concerning our failing medical system with its poor access and high cost. This seems to be a dark period in our time that is not resolving.

During the last 20 years, society has dramatically changed the ways in which we communicate. The majority of us, I feel, speak to each other in a one-way pattern that does not encourage easy feedback of competing ideas. The technology of human communication appears to encourage the isolation or siloing of unchallenged ideas that are made available only to those most likely to agree. Multiple computer programs, such as those on Facebook, are designed to facilitate this phenomenon. This philosophy of the 21st century tends to separate conflicting ideas and to stifle meaningful debate and humbleness. Even when an idea is flawed, the purveyor of that thought can too easily avoid exposure to alternative thoughts.

Several years ago, I heard about a sociological study that contrasted the behavior of two different groups of people. Group A was designed to consist of individuals with similar political philosophies. Group B was designed to consist of individuals with contrasting philosophies. Each group met repeatedly and independently over a period of time. The political philosophies of each group were reassessed after this process. Group A moved in the direction of feeling more confident that their philosophy was the correct one to the exclusion of other options. Members of group B were found to move towards a more moderate point of view. Is it possible that the changes related above are validating this study on a much larger scale?

The ”new” communication also allows an environment of anonymity in which an individual can exhibit behavior normally not allowed in society and not be identifiable. During my exposure to the web site of a Boston Globe sports reporter recently, I was surprised to observe some unsigned threatening and vile messages sent to him in response to his sports related articles. He said such communications were common and that they had become an accepted part of his life since the advent of the internet. He contrasted this behavior to the more enjoyable face-to-face encounters he had with his readers.

I am convinced that dealing with these changes is extremely important and that understanding them is as important as any problem we, as a society, currently face. I believe that passing our contrasting ideas through a filter of fairness and debate would be a reasonable start. Unaddressed, these issues will continue to negatively affect our world, because they are powerful and because our children are watching.

— Special to the Press Herald