Impartiality and fair play revisited

It is not fair to ask of others what you are willing do yourself.(Eleanor Roosevelt). Park. As a runner, Miguel benefits from the expansive neighborhood watch that keeps his local park safe for nighttime jogs. Yet, neighbors complain, he never takes turn on patrol. Something seems troubling about Miguel's behavior. Yet it hard say doing wrong. He did anyone act benefit. agreed any park-walking plan. Given number people involved in (imagine town with thousands volunteers at ready), meaningfully adding anyone's burden. when persons engage mutually advantageous cooperative venture according rules, and thus restrict their liberty ways necessary yield advantages all, those who have submitted these restrictions right similar acquiescence part benefited submission.1 Put more precisely: Much this claim controversial: does mere receipt really trigger obligations? Does hold if beneficiaries acquiesce? Must relevant track objective or subjective good? But my interest lies further puzzle, one arises once we accept something vein explains wrongness actions. Snow. Neda hates shoveling snow. One morning after big storm she wakes up learn enterprising elves cleaned her sidewalk driveway her. She delighted. less delighted they drop off (reasonably priced) bill.3 Many scholars treat Park Snow as different kind. While former said involve wrongful free-riding, latter viewed predatory demand. Consequently, while duty join in, thought nothing wrong refuses pay bill. The problem two scenarios look remarkably similar. In both situations, group provide an unrequested benefit take so obligation repay manner specified by benefactors. My goal essay make sense competing intuitions developing account differentiates demands practices properly generate duties play. fact, I will argue, cases like even than theories play acknowledged. Nonetheless, can distinguish situating broader moral landscape. Doing better grounds and, precisely, illuminates its scope—but requires profoundly reimagining asks us way calls into question long-standing assumptions civic ethics. argument proceeds follows. Section I, detail motivation underlies Building recent work Garrett Cullity others, argue such obligations arise concern fairness best understood demand appropriate impartiality. Those free-ride unjustified exceptions granting themselves privilege would deny others. II, raise challenge attempts Isabella Trifan flesh out notion We can, suggests, free-riding looking participants' attitudes. On account, similarly situated non-contributions constitute violations impartiality long share preference receiving same good without contributing production. approach, show, fails capture widespread appealing beliefs fairness. III, propose alternative. Fairness concerns whenever working good, but unwilling return favor. This makes our intuitions. However, reveal IV, suggests significant revisions understanding Accepting upending claims responsibility vote, taxes, undertake other acts. V, defend view against objections. reciprocity provides parsimonious, grounded, instructive play, distinguishes wrongdoing demands. Underlying defenses Beneficiaries benefactors unfairly fail participate scheme which benefited. Rawls, example, writes, “We gain labor share.”4 Klosko holds non-cooperation problematic because “th[e] situation unfair.”5 Murphy regards lawbreakers acting wrongly enjoy “unfair profit.”6 Just defines unfair, features virtue qualifies such, remained largely unspecified discussions scholarship, only sought offer systematic account.7 Fairness, matter A judge ought prefer convicted felon over another sentencing former's religion, professor should grade spouse, all participants soccer game be held offside rule. Free-riders, violate standard. refusing received, actors permit think focus captures important transactional request fairly importantly comparative. distinct receive want otherwise merit. worry lest treated differently detriment. Of course, differential treatments If enter children's race, awarded medal run faster toddler opponent. instantiating privilege? When present, person avoids unjustifiably exempts herself rules apply lack desiderata exhibit no bias: everyone reason way. argues, succeeds aim: where applies not, permitting identify Situations Snow, third requirement. To elves, “would mean holding liable unsolicited worth cost.” This, contends, destructively inefficient.9 Here problem. read having form Snow: reasonable payment (in case, patrol; bill). behavior violates generalization requirement why former? Enterprising Scientists. Everyone runs risk contracting mild chronic illness water supply tainted dangerous chemical. day, am find drink, thanks scientists passed through implemented water-purifying mechanism overnight. bill.10 Like watch, (enhanced health) improves everyone's lives. Framed way, case passes test. Contributing future efforts each off. At time, precisely were doing—providing drive-by hoping get paid. According Cullity, flunks conclusive guidance: salient purposes generalization? Free Rider's Preference (FRP). valuable collective free prepared pay, conditions under offered, had to.11 They attitude, holds, as—and as—their preferences ordered: clarity seek. reading townsfolk refuse up. Each shares point view: desire made contribute process making because—or posits—they keep consumers healthy). contrast, interested (or presume). What shoveled: paid.13 rule failing Garden. You go few weeks forget your garden. Mary notices plants wilting away. steps waters garden daily. own plants. FRP it. have. shared efforts. silly: there doesn't seem anything expects favor cat-sitting, cookies, ride airport. Indeed, stakes here echo fair-play scholars' complaint: Mary's benefit, unfair profit. worse good. Far being fair, (for example) check cat was away, declaration “I owe don't garden” ring almost bizarrely churlish. Cullity's explanation unduly vague, Trifan's proves narrow, cutting real considerations There is, however, revise mistake. deserve reciprocation recasting FRP. formulated, approach presumes insofar particular goods—watered flower garden, washed cars. vastly limits set applies. Our tastes aims diverse. love dark chocolate; hate care arias; Norwegian death metal. need ourselves operating spheres. Despite differing views Zumba classes DIY home renovation, share—a mutual world enrich life goes lost wallet; refill printer paper cookies breakroom. equally desires advantage behalf unreciprocated; yourselves position despite divergent hobbies. Both advancing projects. help faltering may requiring assistance car somebody mail before stolen. general level, align desire. ordering simplicity's sake, going forward, first preferences, since them encompass elements FRP) that: rescues If, given ordering, same, found impartiality: exception yourself standards employ. formulation longer answers original puzzle took Garden, Scientists, qualify demanding return, too After Neda's cost all-things-considered pay. solution revising refining are, think, improvements required: conceptualizes costs, second benefits. Let's start former. Recall aim parties must count currently status price “bearing benefits-producing costs,” though free. producing presumably, itself intended reflect thing fact party has taken very costs other. equalize situation, infer, beneficiary benefactor paying joining production noting that, although repayment structure baked often granted accept, offers explanation. scientists, townspeople duty-bound study safety practice roving do-gooding, rather bill been presented. light this, reading, bear involves processes required produce goods, Hart Rawls suggest. another, determined benefactors.14 readings linked, presumably some determining practice. For purposes, selecting between irrelevant: either reserve beneficiaries. issue this. Benefactors choose discretion. Your city's road builders, garden-watering neighbor not—in many cannot reasonably—ask whether build trails lay new train lines. consent contract. All matters generating resulting genuinely beneficial high. By freedom. (on reading) received (selected benefactor's discretion) second) (set benefactor). situated: exercise discretion how beneficiaries, privilege. Baking. residents Jane's apartment building decide create repainting hallway walls. Jane knows improved decor smell paint. Instead, bakes cakes participating leaves common area enjoy, much do.15 classic reflected FRP, acts wrongly. distaste smell, (we imagine) assisting leaving walls undone. possess free-rider's mindset. But, could say, herself. doing—contributing consistent impartial: manner. Inaction. labor. wants them. Taking consist supports revised version open-ended payment: maps neatly onto explored, greater explanatory power. appropriately Baking, behaves Inaction neighbors' cause complaint Unlike intuition watering triggers And unlike sensibly explain went isn't didn't sidewalks shoveled (perhaps did!). Rather, dictate terms repayment. Their error presenting so, impose beneficiaries—a Critics might objections exchange: partial, persons' actual preference-rankings. consider turn. First, detractors occupy bound abide painting scheme, retained whatever desires: cakes, plumbing, communal enjoys freedom lack. notice, committed so.16 Jane, path. Even loss included calculation, surely repaid taking additional burdens.17 Imagine builds laundry room, rose weekly treats. complain acted unfairly, happily eating among flowers laboriously nurtures. Still, opponents insist exchange non-cooperators' preferences. Both, goods (depending preferred adopt producers' grants exception. see answer heart objection—the able together valued goods. foundational impartial action, critique believe. idea wish unrealistic utterly unappealing. Why simply done discretion, tell me exactly behave? distastefulness lends force famous play.18 come control another—an realistic measure benefactors' requests—I well inclined towards me—but quite obliged obey dictates. replicate benefit-producing profited, especially kind favored advocates play—complex ventures advance public health safety. instances, fear exercising vitiate benefit: show jury duty, serve military. requires, initial selection precise provision.19 mistaken several grounds. already seen example. commonplace feel others' rely breaks down, carry couch stairs. exchanges subsumed single practice, lose purpose—they specific then altogether rejects ordinary feature experience develop theory cases. perhaps succeed latter. cases—large-scale interactions lend enough—but everyone—to task Such circumstances routine: enough military, carbon neutral. conclude task. absurd. require farmers, dentists, school-crossing guards, sewer-system experts.20 That just unattractive—it impossible. roles, attentive responsive work.21 (having satisfied sufficiently so) perform end off—all paid work. Fair leveling-down principle. suffer. polls candidate's election secured—I actually productive bring social conditions. 400th nightly patrol medium-sized park—what sufficient job, promoting further, efficacious, means—improving lighting streets, planting challenges coordination give humble careful assessments participation required, innumerable actions add value. true rarely one-shot deals. regular feedback using solar panels. Finally, do-as-I-do overlooks routinely situated. costly mother jobs tenured sabbatical. fundamentally anticipation burdens differ dramatically. reasonably balk asked unequal cost. Now, proponents schemes morality standard activate large-scale scheme. slow-moving inattentive individual unlikely ever, themselves, fully laying divide equitable fashion. bow dictates participated. Although fail, discordant Earlier, Scientists clear instances free-riding. central explaining distinguished inappropriate do. classifies Neither nor specify repaid. behave up, correct. None beneficiaries' debts satisfied. Park, absent reconstruct IV. now, let primarily Understanding elves' pushes refine Earlier suggested “others laboring behalf.” Read benefit—in believe net recipients. interests straightforward. situate Freelance do-gooding seek projects call same. cases, institutions beyond kindness—the market, contract, consensual negotiation—better interests, effective efficient means lower circumstances. success institutions. Actions undermine gaps limits, ideal non-ideal spaces non-market about, reasons. company forgotten garden; markets poorly preventing pollution; places affordable childcare services poor exist, priced green spaces. suited interstitial gaps, interests. fill great Conversely, threaten well-being immediate action technically revision Contributors would-be free-riders following attitudinal ordering: exchange, successfully deeply felt difference Consider typically defined (among things) jointness provision entails furnishing all.22 emphasis. These consent- market-based approaches. negotiate terms, communicate agreement, limit assent.