6 ms·
A random distribution of resources is not unfair, in fact it is the most fair way to distribute resources assuming each participant has an equal chance of gaini
by matte_black 9y ago
A random distribution of resources is not unfair, in fact it is the most fair way to distribute resources assuming each participant has an equal chance of gaining resources. A state lottery is not an unjust inequality, it is a justified inequality, because it's outcome is truly random.
- dvt 9y agoYou're free to diagree with Dworkin (and Rawls), but keep in mind they are some of the most preeminent minds of the past century. Your argument has to be a bit more thought out than merely explaining how randomness works. You would have to tackle the concept of "ambition-sensitivity" and its relationship to fairness, among other things.
- matte_black 9y agoAn appeal to authority is no way to justify your argument. The fact is, a truly random distribution is fair, and no eminent mind in this century or any other will ever disprove that. Whether it’s perceived as fair, is a different story. It seems that the lower one’s chance of winning, the more unfair they perceive the lottery. That does not mean it’s unfair, it means they don’t understand fairness.
- dvt 9y agoHonestly, you're just being obtuse and incredibly disrespectful. These people literally dedicated their lives to studying fairness, economics, and social theory.
- matte_black 9y agoYou can dedicate your entire life and more to something, and still be wrong.
- bjourne 9y agoWhy is a random distribution fair? Is a normal distribution fair too? A poisson distribution? Are in your mind any distributions that are unfair? What is your definition of fair?
- bildung 9y agoAn appeal to authority is entirely appropriate if that authority is indeed an authority on the topic discussed. The logical flaw you allude to only fits if dvt would have said e.g. "I'm right because Lady Gaga said the same argument." While Lady Gaga is an authority, she isn't on the theory of justice.
- noxecanexx 9y agoYou refuse explain what you mean by fair. Regardless of whether he is appealing to authority or not you need to dispute his(their) arguments with conterpoints
- saas_co_de 9y agoUnjust as in not justified on a rational economic basis. Lotteries may be "fair" as you describe them but they would be an irrational way to distribute resources on a broad scale. For instance, if your salary each month were a random amount taken out of a general pool distributed by your employer you would only want to stay in your job if you were a really low productivity worker with no other opportunities and would be desperately seeking alternative employment otherwise.
- matte_black 9y agoLotteries can be a very rational way to distribute resources broadly. In an emergency situation where several people need a resource but there is only a limited amount available randomly distributing the resource is the fairest and the most rational way to get it to those in need in order to prevent other activities such as hoarding, scalping and favoritism.
- dvt 9y agoA trivial counterexample is an organ transplant. It doesn't make sense to flip a coin when deciding whether to give a healthy liver to an octogenarian or a 3-month-old. There are different forces at play here (not 'ambition-sensitive' ones), but it's a case where randomness fails miserably. Obviously, the 3-month-old should get it -- indeed, this is how scarce organs are actually distributed.
- matte_black 9y agoBut what if the octogenarian really wants to live? It may be justified to give it to the 3 month old, but that is not fair to the octogenarian and incredibly ageist.
- oh_sigh 9y agoDoes the octogenarian want to live more or less than the 3 month old?
- 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- SamReidHughes 9y agoA state lottery is something you freely enter by choice. That's different from other kinds of randomness. If random distribution is fair, and if souls are randomly assigned to bodies, then there can be no unfairness in the world. I don't think there'd be a difference in unfairness if souls were in fact allocated to bodies by some sort of deterministic process or by the whims of a maniacal god.
- dcre 9y agoIf there's $100 to distribute among 10 people, and everyone has an equal chance of winning, but the winner takes the full $100, then no, of course that is not a just outcome merely because it's random. Come on.