Of course from the context of the child, as a singular being, he
or she deserves what he or she wants to eat. However, when drawn
between a child whose parents do not have the means to buy two
bowls of laksa and the child whose parents can buy as many bowls of
laksa as she wants, then we will say that the former is
disadvantaged and the latter is fortunate. Is it fair? I think it
is unfair, if we measure fairness as 'equality', that we as
individuals in this world deserve an equal share of it's resources.
But such measure of 'fairness' is cast as fantasy and idealistic in
this world of ours.
In this world, it's about the talent we possess and the hard
work we put in and the sheer cunningness we articulate in our
endeavors which divinates our 'share of the pie'. Individuals who
do not possess such traits will remain the sullen rotten scums of
the earth who basically get what they deserve. Back to the laksa
equation, the child in this context is just unfortunate and her
parent is just being frugal given his or her financial situation.
However, I'm glad you brought up this keen observation of yours,
for then we question what becomes of the child? Can we really
expect her, given her situation, to better the situation of that of
her father? Or is she entrapped upon her state? Is it fair
then?
