I was merely using an example that seemed relevant to this community. The point is someone has decided to use his time to the benefit of others. It seems to me

I was merely using an example that seemed relevant to this community. The point is someone has decided to use his time to the benefit of others. It seems to me that the fair reward in this case should be proportional to the benefit produced as perceived by the person/people benefiting and not depend in any way on what it took the "provider" to produce. If you argue that fairness is subjective and utility is king you've already rejected the entire argument about genetic advantage. I would point out though that to define utility you'd still need a definition of what's "good" and with it, very likely, what's "fair" and we are back to square one.