Came across this thought puzzle via a MetaFilter thread which, in turn, comes from a review of a book called “The Idea of Justice” by Amartya Sen.
Here's the puzzle…
“Take three kids and a flute. Anne says the flute should be given to her
because she is the only one who knows how to play it. Bob says the
flute should be handed to him as he is so poor he has no toys to play
with. Carla says the flute is hers because it is the fruit of her own
labour. How do we decide between these three legitimate claims?”
There's a case for all of the children to have ownership of the flute but my initial reaction was that Bob should have the flute. Obviously, that's a pretty instinctive pick for me and my value system but once you read the MetaFilter comments, you see all kinds of other options are out there including some very creative ways that all three children would benefit (in its simplest form, “Why does someone have to own it? Why can't they share it?”).
You also see that the puzzle is worded neutrally in terms of the case that can be made for each child but also that everyone reads into the puzzle, their own meaning and cultural assumptions (some read it as “Carla deserves the flute because she made it” but others point out that she could be a factory worker who gets an hourly wage but has no claim of ownership in this situation.) Finally, some ask how would this be different if the item in question wasn't a musical instrument but something like a university scholarship? Or what if it was food? (Anne is a food lover, Bob is hungry and Carla made the cake – who should get it?)