Imagine this scenario?

There are 1 treadmills in a gym. 101 people signed up for gym membership to use the treadmill. Person X , being the last person to sign up, finds out that there is not enough treadmills. Person Y offers to SELL his spot so Person X can use his treadmill for the cost which is higher than the cost of membership.

Is this fair?
Is this moral?(probably not)
Assume Person Y values the exercise on a treadmill MUCH more than Person X.
Assume that this is the only exercising method.
Assume the gym will not add any more treadmills.
Assume this is the only gym in the state.

What do you guys think?

✅ Answers

? Best Answer

In most gyms, treadmills are not dedicated to any particular person. When not all hundred are in use, the extra person can always make use of a free one. Any reasonable person, confronted with the conditions you specify, would say, “The heck with that. Give me my membership money back, since you can’t provide what I paid for. I’ll take up running instead.”

All in all, this particular scenario is fictitious. Change a few details, though, and you do confront the dilemma of sharing resources held in common. Perhaps you could imagine community garden plots, rental cars, copies of library books, or something similar.

I think this is the silliest question ever.

A gym membership entitles the person to use the facilities.. it DOES NOT guarantee them their own personal treadmill.

And joining a gym to ONLY use the treadmill is a waste of money. A person can walk on the street for free…

Ask better questions please.