> If people want to argue that the doctor was right to go out and distribute the vaccine ad-hoc, I think they should consider not just the actual result, but al

> If people want to argue that the doctor was right to go out and distribute the vaccine ad-hoc, I think they should consider not just the actual result, but also counterfactuals, and whether in those counterfactual cases the actions would still be "justified". By returning to the real events, you're avoiding that consideration. I agree that we must consider counterfactuals, but we can still only judge him by his actions, not hypothetical scenarios. Considering counterfactuals should help guide policy, not punishment. > I did not mean "equity" in terms of "equitable racial distribution". I meant "equity" in the nebulous way of "fairness". So how do we determine a particular list of recipients was "equitable" or not? While I agree with the idea that equity should mean fairness, I would offer that unfortunately in America that notion begins and ends with "equitable racial distribution".