Life’s Not Fair, But We Can Still Strive for Fairness: The Idea of Good-Luck Insurance

The fact that life isn’t fair is usually offered to victims as an alternative to despair (or maybe revenge), but I think this is short-sighted. A much better way to use it, in my opinion, is to let it inspire us toward behaving fairly. The fundamental unfairness of Life is — or could be — a principle axiom of personal ethics.

“Why should we strive for ethical excellence?”, some unscrupulous cynic may ask. Because Life is unfair, I say! To the extent that Life is not fair, we should do what we can to make it as fair as we can make it.

Now, when we think of examples of Life’s unfairness, we often think of unhappy examples — being born with a crack addiction, or with your intestine’s on the outside of your body, or with cancer (can you tell that the mother of my children is a NICU nurse?). But that is just half of the story, really. Life is every bit as full of happy examples: being born to wealthy parents, or surviving a cancerous tumor, or guessing the winning numbers in a large-payout lottery (arguably an unhappy example, since many such winners lack the financial expertise for managing the prize, wind up blowing the whole jackpot within a year or two, and many even accumulate an overwhelming mountain of debt in the process).

And in the same way that we have invented insurance to mitigate the risks of unhappy examples, I’m thinking it might be good to invent a different kind of insurance to mitigate the risks of the happy examples too. We might call it something like Good-Luck Insurance.

The basic idea here is that a subscriber or customer would receive a regular stream of payments — we might call them anti-premiums, because they flow toward the customer instead of toward the insurer — and in exchange, whenever he or she got especially lucky in some way (as defined by the policy), then he or she would have to give back to the insurer some portion of the “prize”.

So, for example, let’s say I “bought” a surgery policy. Once “purchased”, I would immediately begin receiving monthly anti-premiums, which I could then spend on anything I wanted (food, clothing, shelter, leisure, etc.) But if I ever survived any kind of surgery, I would have to pay back to the insurer some portion of the premiums I had received over the years. On the other hand, if I never even had surgery, I would just keep all those premiums!

Now, you might think this is basically what Communism is all about (or is it Socialism, I know there’s supposed to be a difference, but I’m not at all clear on what it is — feel free to explain it to me in a comment below!), but there’s really a huge and critical difference, which is that Communism (Socialism?) is imposed on all citizens, whereas good-luck insurance is strictly voluntary. Nobody would be obliged to purchase a policy, and you would only purchase the particular coverage you wanted.

I think one great benefit of such an insurance product is that it would be yet another means by which we could all choose to strive for fairness in the context of an unfair Life. Given that Life is as unfair as it is, I’m thinking we need all the help we can get.

That’s the basic idea of Good-Luck insurance. Please let me know what you think in the comments!

Without Luck, We Cannot Hope To Solve A Problem If We Don’t Understand It

Light bulb

Image found here.

One of my favorite problem-solving or solution-finding heuristics was articulated by Nobel Laureate Herbert A. Simon as follows:

“…solving a problem simply means representing it so as to make its solution transparent.” — Herbert A Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial.

To the extent that understanding a problem and representing it are more or less the same thing, and taking luck into account, I think Simon’s core principle can be reasonably and more colloquially paraphrased as:

 Unless we get lucky, we cannot hope to solve a problem if we don’t understand it.

 

Privilege-Shaming, Whiteysplained

Young man with a beard

Note: This is not a picture of the author, who is much, much older, and inclined to see this younger fellow as something of a stunt-double. Image found here.

First, congratulations to the inventor of privilege-shaming, and especially to all of the underprivileged human beings who feel empowered by this potent tool of civil discourse.

Notwithstanding my autistic neurology, which has been quite the bull in the china shop of my life — strewing it with the embarrassing barn stink and colorful porcelain shards of countless relationship failures, job failures and financial failures — after all that foamy, taurine ruckus, I am nevertheless a college-educated white man of middle-class upbringing, which is to say a man of no small privilege and thus a bona fide member of the group that is really the primary target of privilege-shaming. And writing as such, I must tell you that I am impressed with the acidic sting of this talk-weapon, in particular its ability to make me feel ashamed of myself, and for a reason that is totally different from all of the others that I already have.

To clarify, it doesn’t make me feel ashamed simply for being lucky enough to win the privilege lottery — after all, we really can’t fault someone rationally for getting lucky — but rather because I have spent so many years mindlessly, shamelessly, and yes, selfishly benefiting from my genetic and cultural inheritance, and will probably continue to do so, unless I can figure out what the heck else I should be doing with it. Rest assured, I am quite sure the problems I’ve had with my autistic neurology would have been much worse had I been born black, say, and maybe female, and perhaps two-months premature, with some sort of horrifying physical deformity, and maybe an HIV infection, and perhaps a crystal-meth addiction, and on top of all that, as an orphan.

Yes, and all I have to whine about is autism, and relatively mild autism at that. I know indeed that many, many autistic people have it much worse than I do, and somewhere out in the world I’m sure at least a few of them are crystal-meth addicted, HIV infected little black girls with horrific physical deformities and dead parents.

Yes, it’s all quite humbling, to say the least.

The relevant catch-phrase here seems to be “check your privilege“, which I take to be a modernized, smug-free and possibly more aggressive version of “noblesse oblige“, or as the character of Uncle Ben said it in an old Spiderman reboot: with great power comes great responsibility (YouTube clip). To the extent that this is true, then “check your privilege” is basically a reminder not to take it all for granted, or let it go to my head, or maybe an invitation to pause and acknowledge that there is no virtue in merely getting lucky. To have any claim to virtue, luck must be shared with those less lucky.

But in seeing it this way, I think it’s important also to recognize the unfortunate resemblance “check your privilege” shares with Rudyard Kipling‘s now infamously racist and pro-imperialist exhortation to the United States, made in 1899 following the Spanish-American war and the subsequent American take-over of the Philippines, to….

“Take up the White Man’s burden
Send forth the best ye breed–
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild–
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child….”

But I think this resemblance must be superficial. I seriously doubt that asking someone to “check your privilege” is really anything like asking (more or less) to “please use the fruits of your good fortune to care for me like a pet monkey”. That strikes me as a straw-man, and probably a cheap tactic for licencing oneself to dodge the requested privilege check.

No, to my view “check your privilege” is for the most part a blunt reminder that good luck is best shared, and really nothing to brag about.

 

[Note: A few weeks after I wrote the above, I realized I had more to say on the subject, which I posted here.]