3 ms·
I find this interesting because: by hoarding the coconuts (without necessity in this example), the good climber is causing harm or injury to the poor climber. T
by jljljl 13y ago
I find this interesting because: by hoarding the coconuts (without necessity in this example), the good climber is causing harm or injury to the poor climber. This injury is considered fair and justified. However, if the poor climber causes injury to the first by stealing the coconuts after the fact, this is seen as unfair.
- sejje 13y agoIt's your perception that the good climber is causing harm to the poorer. How about this scenario: if the coconuts are equally retrieved, both climbers will have their lives threatened. Is it unfair for one of the climbers to take from the other at that point, when simply by having an equal share they are both threatening the life of each other? Of course you probably have a difference of opinion from your previous position in this case, though I'm not sure how you'll sort it out. I don't believe there's any inherent right of the poor climber to demand something from the good one. I think he has the right to exist and compete for the same coconuts, and that wherever that lands him is fair. I have a big heart, and I'd hope that any better climber would share his coconuts, but I don't believe they should ever be taken from him or that he should be prohibited from climbing just because he's good at it, etc.
- 21echoes 13y ago> It's your perception that the good climber is causing harm to the poorer. pretty sure causing someone to starve is, indeed, harming them.