Final answer:
Aristotle's notion of fairness emphasizes the protection of the middle class, whereas game theory's 2-person equilibrium focuses on strategic self-interest. John Rawls introduced a modern concept of fairness, advocating for social justice and equality that resonates more with Aristotle's views than with game theory's emphasis on strategy and outcomes.
Step-by-step explanation:
Aristotle's Notion of Fairness
Aristotle's view of fairness is distinctive in that it emphasizes the middle class as pivotal to the common good, suggesting that too much income inequality can undermine society. His thought resonates in modern political rhetoric that champions the middle class as the backbone of a nation.
Modern Treatment through Game Theory
The 2-person equilibrium concept in game theory contrasts with Aristotle's approach by proposing that individuals act out of self-interest to reach an equilibrium where no player has an incentive to change their choice, assuming the other player's choice remains constant. This concept does not inherently address fairness but rather focuses on the strategic decisions that individuals make in interdependent situations.
John Rawls's Theory of Justice
John Rawls, an American philosopher, introduced a modern concept of fairness that has influenced American law and policy. Rawls's theory holds that a just society must ensure basic liberties for all (the liberty principle) and that inequalities should benefit the least advantaged (the difference principle).
Comparison to Game Theory
Rawls's approach to fairness aims to address structural inequalities and to ensure a just distribution of resources, which contrasts with the outcome-focused view in game theory. Rawls's principles align more closely with Aristotle's concerns about socioeconomic divides affecting the common good.