I find it interesting that one of the things mentioned in
the video was whether students had attended a private school. I grew up going
to a private Jewish school. It had nothing to do with my parents being rich and
us being privileged. One might argue the opposite. As a minority group, we
lacked the privilege of being able to attend a public school that was
consistent with our values.
This is an example of how context matters. There is a danger
with these kinds of exercises that, by focusing on certain privileges, they
implicitly ignore other privileges. This opens the door for these exercises to
function, not as tools for people to understand how they are privileged, but as
an opportunity for some people to pretend that they are not privileged.
Another dangerous aspect of this exercise is that it treats
the economy as a fixed pie in which whatever you get comes at the expense of
someone else. Imagine that some slow kid won the $100 and refused to share.
Would a fast kid, who was forced to start at the back have the moral right to
take the money by force? If we agree that the slow kid does not deserve the
money but the fast kid who would have won a fair race does then the slow kid is
a thief and the fast kid should have the right to use force to get back what is
rightfully his.
Imagine a rich man who benefited from privilege and a poor
man who did not. The poor man comes to the rich man's home, pulls out a gun and
demands a share of the rich man's fortune. If the rich man goes for his gun and
kills the poor man, is he a murderer? If the poor man kills the rich man, is he
a murderer? Clearly, for either of them to claim self-defense, we would have to
agree as to which of them had a legitimate claim on the money in the first
place.
This is not an idle question. Every day I put my life in
your hands on the assumption that we fundamentally agree about the legitimacy
of property rights. The moment that trust is breached, the consequences as they
play out perhaps over years, are truly Hobbesian.