i know i know. i was joking around. for the record, you can probably go a week withouth food as long as you have water. but yeah yeah... besides the point.
fairness is a relative concept anyway. how about instead you have two people on an island, one can survive, the other can't, period, regardless of food and rescue etc. so you try to decide who dies based on fairness. person1 is a 14 year old boy, intelligent, promising future, so on. Person2 is a poor middle aged woman. seems 'fair' to let the boy live since he has much more to live for. But wait, now the woman has 6 kids who she's supporting back home, without a husband. Now it seems that 6 children's lives are more important that 1, seems 'fair' to save the woman. but of her 6 children, 3 are mentally retarded, 2 are severly physically handicapped, and the other is just average. Now do we save the 14 year old with the promising future, or the single mother of 6 children who likely will have dismal lives either way. which is more fair? its very relative...
anyway, that hardly helps the original poster. i suppose you could say, that regardless of who gets off the island, they both eventually die, so they turn out equal. equality prevails, woo!
maybe this thread should be in philosophy instead?
