Lane, you raised this issue twice so I've decided to address it.
I asked:
"If you have a small child and an adult taking turns at work or play can you imagine many scenarios where taking turns could be unfair?"
You answered:
"Your example is difficult to respond to succinctly because it mixes a shared contribution scenario with one of shared resources. I will try to approach it generally. In your example, the child might look at taking turns as unfair but that's 1) because it may have been presented to the child as a question of fairness (why else take turns?) and 2) because children, self-centered and immediate-gratification beasties that they are, tend to be preoccupied with fairness. But it's more aptly framed as a question of utility, IMO."
Why is it a question of utility instead of fairness? Lets say that the work involves a cleaning out a ditch and each is assigned 100 yards of ditch to clean out.
They can both do the work, it's just that the adult is much taller, stronger and able to do the work. But if you just want the job done and don't care about meeting a time line that will be delayed by the child's work, who cares who does it or how much effort it takes them?
Sure, the child might say it doesn't seem fair but in your public policy fairness vacuum, that's not a consideration.
On the other hand, if the child and the adult are both to benefit from the ditch it doesn't seem "fair" that the child would stand idly by and watch the adult toil in the ditch without filling in and helping out a little, even if it doesn't get the job done any quicker.
In my public policy world, in marriages, in friendships and in civilized systems across the globe, we make decisions based on needs, abilities and in maximizing the public good and minimizing the public pain. The sum total of those decisions can be summed up as maximizing efficiency and fairness. To look at one without the other is senselessly narrow viewed. Ed |
