You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
2

[–] ghotioninabarrel 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

In this case the fairness is not fairness of what is given, but fairness of effect.

The first distribution only really benefits the middle guy. The second benefits both the middle guy and the short guy. Switching from the first distribution to the second doesn't hurt the tall guy in any significant way.

That last bit is the really important bit imo. It's why the analogy breaks down when people try to use it to justify quotas etc, because in those cases the benefit to the (assumed) disadvantaged is in fact coming at the expense of the (assumed) advantaged.

The third setup is obviously superior to the other two, it's also the hardest to make happen.