“Shared Stages: Divvying Up Taylor Swift Eras Tour Tickets Among Four Mates”

We Have a Taylor Swift Concert Crisis. How Do We Solve It?

Allocation of Scarce Goods

The dilemma presented in this case revolves around the allocation of a scarce resource, Taylor Swift concert tickets, among four friends. The scarcity of the tickets, combined with differing interests and efforts put into the acquisition process, raises questions of fairness and ethical decision-making.

Principles of Allocation

Various principles of allocation can be considered in this situation. The principle of “to each according to their needs” suggests that the tickets should go to the two friends who are the biggest fans of Taylor Swift. This principle takes into account the desire and enthusiasm of the individuals involved, which may be reflected in their need to attend the concert.

Another principle, rooted in utilitarianism, argues that goods should be allocated to those who will derive the most enjoyment or value from them. Based on this principle, it becomes uncertain whether the friend who has already attended an Eras Tour concert should recuse themselves, as they may still derive significant enjoyment from attending another show.

Alternatively, the principle of “those who put in the work” suggests that tickets should be allocated based on the effort each friend made in trying to obtain them. Here, the unequal effort put into procuring tickets becomes relevant. However, this principle raises questions of measurement and comparison, as it is difficult to determine the exact value of each individual’s effort.

The Challenge of Resolving Conflicting Principles

Reaching an amicable resolution based on these principles may prove challenging. Determining the greatest need, the most enjoyment, or the highest level of effort is subjective and open to interpretation. Additionally, considering other potential recipients beyond the four friends may complicate the decision-making process.

Given these complexities, a random-number generator could be a simple and fair solution. However, a round of rock-paper-scissors, as suggested by the Ethicist, could also suffice. This approach would introduce an element of chance while minimizing potential conflicts arising from subjective judgments.

Reader Responses

The Ethicist column also received reader responses to a previous question regarding a friend’s decision to take a weight loss drug. The readers’ comments highlight the importance of sensitivity, respect, and avoiding judgment when discussing sensitive topics such as weight.

One reader recommends staying silent until the concerns can be expressed coherently and respectfully. Another emphasizes that commenting on someone else’s weight is inappropriate and suggests that there should be no moral superiority attached to the topic. Another reader argues that the endorsement of weight loss drugs contributes to a damaging diet culture, but the Ethicist disagrees, stating that moralizing weight issues does not solve them.

Final Thoughts

The allocation of scarce goods can often lead to challenging ethical dilemmas among friends. In the case of Taylor Swift concert tickets, it may be best to consider principles such as need, enjoyment, and effort. However, reaching a consensus based on these principles can be difficult.

In situations where agreement seems improbable, resorting to a random method like rock-paper-scissors can provide a fair and neutral solution. Additionally, maintaining a respectful and supportive approach when discussing sensitive topics with friends can preserve and strengthen relationships, even in matters pertaining to weight or body image.

Overall, the complexities of allocating resources and navigating ethical dilemmas require individuals to employ empathy, understanding, and a willingness to compromise in order to maintain harmonious friendships.