What's beyond that fog?
Sorry I'm a day late with this week's thought experiment. Monday was a holiday here in Britain and I just felt like slacking off with my dog in a big grassy field all afternoon. So what are you going to do to me about that?
--------------------------------------------
The twenty civilians selected to go and live on the Mars colony were set an unusual task. On the red planet there would be a number of goods, including accommodation, food, drink, and luxury items. They had to decide, before they went out, on what basis these goods would be distributed. But, critically, they did not know what the most important tasks would be on the colony. All the work could be manual, or none of it. It might require great intelligence, it might be better suited to those less in need of mental stimulation.
The first suggestion made was that everything should be shared equally: from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. But then someone raised an objection. If there was lots of work to be done and someone refused to do their share, wouldn't it be unfair to reward them with an equal slice of the cake? Surely there needed to be an incentive to contribute?
The objection was accepted, but that just seemed to lead to more problems. Fairness did not appear to mean the same as giving everyone the same. But what then did it mean?
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 28.
---------------------------------------------
What do you think? And please don't just say "the market will decide" because then I will know you haven't given this any serious thought.
--------------------------------------------
The twenty civilians selected to go and live on the Mars colony were set an unusual task. On the red planet there would be a number of goods, including accommodation, food, drink, and luxury items. They had to decide, before they went out, on what basis these goods would be distributed. But, critically, they did not know what the most important tasks would be on the colony. All the work could be manual, or none of it. It might require great intelligence, it might be better suited to those less in need of mental stimulation.
The first suggestion made was that everything should be shared equally: from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. But then someone raised an objection. If there was lots of work to be done and someone refused to do their share, wouldn't it be unfair to reward them with an equal slice of the cake? Surely there needed to be an incentive to contribute?
The objection was accepted, but that just seemed to lead to more problems. Fairness did not appear to mean the same as giving everyone the same. But what then did it mean?
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 28.
---------------------------------------------
What do you think? And please don't just say "the market will decide" because then I will know you haven't given this any serious thought.
