The scenario is similar to Solomon's: the merits the claimants have are equal, but the thing they're laying claim to is not divisible/fungible.
An arbitrary claimant gets the thing and pays the other one half the value of the thing. If that is wrong (very wrong), what would be right? Should we be cutting babies in half?
I'm sure we must be talking past each other, but I don't see where. My original point is that people would like just outcomes, but are satisfied with impartial ones, which is (IMO) the mechanism that allows us to come to consensus on a collective opinion even when no consenting individual holds that exact personal opinion.
An arbitrary claimant gets the thing and pays the other one half the value of the thing. If that is wrong (very wrong), what would be right? Should we be cutting babies in half?
I'm sure we must be talking past each other, but I don't see where. My original point is that people would like just outcomes, but are satisfied with impartial ones, which is (IMO) the mechanism that allows us to come to consensus on a collective opinion even when no consenting individual holds that exact personal opinion.