-
If there's a gallon of water & 10 people are thirsty, it seems fair to give each person 1/10 gallon. Under that "ruleset" (breakdown of the scenario), this seems fairest.
What if someone is dying of thirst? The calculation needs adjustment!
But there's ALWAYS more detail.
--
Even if you completely describe the water and thirst situation, there are other considerations. Does the water "belong" to anyone? Is someone being a massive jerk? You can keep zooming in and also keep expanding the horizon.
When does it stop? When can we agree on what's "fair"?
-
It isn't hopeless. But the fact IS, "fair" is virtual. It depends on how you analyze the situation.
We have to agree on what the "game" is, and then we can agree on what's fair.
That seems inherent to fairness. Doesn't it?
It can only be analyzed from the POV of a ruleset.
-
No one talks about this. Either I'm mistaken, or that's potentially a big thing.
-
This also relates directly to "deserving" and "earning." Both these concepts refer to an assumption of fairness.
What does it mean to earn or deserve, really?
Depends on a ruleset.
-
That might sound like punting, or moral relativism. But I don't think it's either.
Again, "virtual" is no more useless than "hypothetical," "planned," or "mathematical." The latter 3 are all virtual, in fact - yet critical.
-
