I found it interesting and thought I would share it with you here, in my own paraphrased form.
There are three children and one flute. Each child thinks that they deserve the flute over the others.
The first child makes the case that he has nothing, while the others come from wealth and have loads of other toys to play with. This flute would mean much more to him than to the others, and they should recognize that they have much and he has none, and decide to let him have the flute.
The second child is sensitive to the argument of the first child, but responds that she knows how to play the flute, while the other two do not. Surely the flute should be given to her, as she will be able to make beautiful music on it, while the others would just sputter and blow. If she is given the flute, all three will benefit as they will enjoy the sounds of her playing it.
Finally, the third child speaks up. He appreciates her talent, and is sorry for the first child's need. But his argument is simple. I made the flute, therefore it is mine. It is my right to keep it, or to bestow it on either of you two, or anyone else of my choosing.
The first child is making the case for Equity.
The second child is making the case for Utility.
The third child is making the case for Entitlement.
All three would seem to have valid claims.
Who deserves the Flute? Is there a right answer?
What do you think?