• Society is like a big cooperative of arrangement• When there exists big cooperative arrangement it allows for people to receive benefits, but those who gain benefits but don't uphold their part, then theyare a free-rider which is unfair• Those who have sacrificed have a right to the benefits given by a society• Nothing in the principle relies on voluntariness• No one says anything about voluntarily taking the benefits or voluntarily obliging oneself to the society• Avoids problems of tacit consent in this way• Does giving a benefit warrant an obligation by the person who may have received it to return a benefit?• The fairness argument may differ based on the scenario• Arneson points to three features of a cooperative scheme that make a difference• Jointness - anyone's consumption doesn't diminish the consumption of others• Non-Excludability - The providers of the good has to provide it to everyone if they provide it to anyone• Pure Publicity (avoidability) - If anyone consumes a given amount then everyone has to consume the same amount• At the very least, one cannot hinder the receiving of benefits amongst others even though one may not want to receive those benefits• Fairness does not have to be equal doing of the same action, but rather equal value of contribution as far as how it would be applied to societies. This ties intoeconomics,because specialization allows for some people to contribute the things they can contribute best. If we receive benefits from a society we have anobligation to be a producer in the society. We are only obligated by gratitude in that we aim to contribute as much to a society as the value of the benefits thatwe receive from that society.• Rests on the premise that situations are not temporal. A benefit received at one time can be payed out at another time in another
View Full Document
Unlocking...