Topics Justice

Question Do think there's any legitamacy to the principal of first dibs? Suppose Jones sits down on a bench in a public place, and later Smith comes and wants to sit down (there's only room for one). Does Jones have more right to the bench since she came there first?

Accepted:
February 8, 2009

Comments

Perhaps it's not so much a principle as a widely agreed-upon norm for setting potential conflict aside. We could imagine a society where the rule that everyone internalized was quite different: the person on the bench should always give their seat up to the newcomer. That would be a perfectly acceptable arrangement, and so there's no deep principle here; either way of settling priority is fine.

That said, someone who bogarts the bench for hours on end just because they got there first isn't playing nicely. They never got the point of their mother's admonition to let someone else have a turn.

Question Do think there's any legitamacy to the principal of first dibs? Suppose Jones sits down on a bench in a public place, and later Smith comes and wants to sit down (there's only room for one). Does Jones have more right to the bench since she came there first? Accepted:February 8, 2009

Question Do think there's any legitamacy to the principal of first dibs? Suppose Jones sits down on a bench in a public place, and later Smith comes and wants to sit down (there's only room for one). Does Jones have more right to the bench since she came there first?

Accepted:
February 8, 2009