Analogies: Setting the Rules

Imagine you were starting a TV reality show with two groups of people - group A and group B. Each week they had to play some sort of game or contest and the winner got first choice of a limited supply of food for the week. To start things off, group A gets to choose the game and set the rules for the first contest. Don’t you think it’s likely they would set up rules to favor themselves? Even if they tried to be fair, you know the game would be tilted to their advantage, because there is nothing to stop them and no punishment if they do. It’s just human nature.

So Group A wins the contest. No surprise there. But here’s the kicker: the winner of the contest each week gets to set the rules for the following week’s contest. Winner's rules - that’s the American way. Now after several weeks of Group A winning and Group B going hungry, Group B will complain it isn’t fair. But Group A says they're simply following the rules. Group B starts each week with just as much chance to win. And maybe even feeling a little sorry for Group B, Group A now tries to set rules which are actually fair, though after months of eating well and Group B living off their crumbs, it’s hardly surprising that even under equal rules Group A keeps winning. But it's fair, right?

It’s not just about making sure everyone follows the same rules. It’s about setting up fair rules. It’s about leveling the playing field by making up for unfairness in the past. Life is a set of rules called society, and it wasn’t created by some neutral third party. Our rules were determined by those who took advantage of their advantages in the past, and they are propagated by those who win in a system that advantages them. Fairness is a different path entirely.