Imagine that you are stranded on a desert island and the only source of food is coconuts, for which you must climb trees. You are bad at climbing trees and often go hungry. Is this unfair? Who is being unfair to you?
Imagine you are stranded on a desert island with one other person and the only source of food is coconuts for which you must climb trees. You are worse at climbing trees than your fellow cast away. He climbs the trees before you, takes most of the coconuts, and hoards them. When you ask him for some coconuts he says you should have practiced climbing more as a child.
How about a third scenario that may be closer to the situation we have been facing in the US:
Imagine you are stranded on a desert island with 3 other persons and the only source of food is coconuts for which you must climb trees. The 4 persons are you (adult 1), who is worse at climbing trees than your fellow cast away (adult 2). There is also child 1 who adult 1 is responsible for, and child 2 who adult 2 is responsible for. Both child 1 and child 2 have zero experience climbing trees and must depend on the adults. Adult 2 climbs the trees before you, takes most of the coconuts, and hoards them. When you ask him for some coconuts for both you and your child, he says you should have practiced climbing more as a child.
Whether his actions are considered fair or unfair, should your child have to suffer for your own lack of tree climbing experience?
Additionally, if you look at this in terms of evolution, is it okay for adult 1 and child 1 to die off, while adult 2 and child 2 to prosper, effectively moving towards a less diverse population?
No, it's not unfair. He's being a dick, maybe, if there's enough coconuts for both of you with no risk of running out, or if it's very easy and risk-free for him to obtain them, etc, but this is ultimately fair imo.
His logic is stupid at best, of course. You can practice climbing trees as an adult, and you'll probably progress significantly faster than you would as a child.
His response should be "No, I collected these myself, and you can collect yours yourself."
I suppose this all hinges on how you define 'fair'. As long as there is no agreement on that, it's hard to discuss this issue in a meaningful way.
Fair, from my perspective, is taking care of others, especially those weaker than me. I happen to have been born in a nurturing environment, with above-average intelligence, and lots of valuable experiences that inform my decisions. While I do work hard, it sometimes shocks me how many things 'came free' for me.
From my perspective, it is not wrong that I happen to have won the lottery. It is also not wrong that others have not, and have less than me. But I would say it is unfair for me to not share my advantage with others, and to try to increase happiness of those around me through this.
That said, I respect that your view of fairness is different. I just don't like it, and choose to be different, and I'll fight for my version of fair...
Yes, it's unfair to take his coconuts. He earned them, and risked injury (which could mean his life in this contrived example) to collect them, and they are his.
How they will be used is up to him, if things are fair.
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.
It'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.
Let's say there are plenty of coconuts available for both of you, but specifically because of his hoarding you are risking hunger or starvation (I.e., you are good enough at climbing trees that you could feed yourself)
Is it unfair or unjustified for you to take coconuts from him?
Yes both unfair and unjustified. By your principle, force is the only way to interact between humans without regard to any individual rights. Why not extrapolate this in today's world? Surely even wars can be justified by this principle.
What the second person should do is to offer the first person something (maybe he can peel/cook coconuts better?) in return for some of the coconuts. Or find alternative means of food that do not involve climbing.
The problem with these life-boat scenarios is that you try to twist the problem in a scenario wherein the only solution is to harm one or the other person. In real life, there are more options and nuances. And regardless, initiating force is a clear no-no, regardless of the justification - else society quickly escalates into mob rule and might-is-right.
I agree that they are not realistic. And I do not agree that force is the only way to interact between humans. I'm also not trying to twist the problem to justify violence.
The coconuts in this scenario are a shared resource. Neither individual owns the island or the trees. If there are plenty of coconuts on the island for both people, then a simple, "fair" solution for both people to survive is for each person to simply take the number of coconuts that they need.
Yet the answers suggest that a good climber is entitled to take most or all of the coconuts as their ability allows, even if this causes harm to other cast aways. But theft by the poor climber is never justified. Both actions cause harm, but one is considered just while the other is not.
