Perhaps I would like to argue for multiple deciding factors.

If ahead of time, to determine exam score cutoffs for the upcoming academic year, you decided on this specific guideline, (G1), instead of that one, (G2), but after the fact you determine that if you would have used G2 then these 8 students who failed the exam under the auspices of G1 would have passed according to G2, but then you see under G2 a different set of 6 students would have failed, and if this exam has a significant influence on the course of a student’s confidence, health, education, career and life, then why wouldn’t you argue to use both G1 and G2 to the benefit of all 14 individual students? Would it be better after the fact to switch to G2 for the greater good? I would argue that because the exam failure is dependent upon which deciding factor is used, and because G1 and G2 are both valid, acceptable parameters, an individual student’s failure (no matter the deciding factor) is arbitrary and unjust. I would ask, if the outcome is clearly and without argument arbitrary, how is it justice that this random group is punished and that random group is rewarded?

This thinking is outside the box; way outside the box. We have to make the rule and follow the rule, and we have to judge accordingly and consistently to be fair and just – Right? I believe this argument for consistency has some validity if/when not doing so is for the benefit of one at the expense of another; though I might also argue that if we are consistently tempted to apply a rule inconsistently, we should seriously consider our motives or reconsider the rule. But when rules are (clearly and without argument) arbitrary and one can apply multiple rules that benefit more people and hurt no one, what other reason is there for not doing so except for one’s desire to maintain an illusion of control and its underlying power dynamic?

We are stuck inside our box because we think that anarchy, chaos, and turmoil will result if we don’t follow a rule or routine or convention. We are stuck inside our box because we think that when someone else benefits, we will be hurt. And we are stuck inside our box because we think that to defend ourselves we must flex our muscle to keep everyone in their place. And it is this instinctive, zero-sum, selfish thinking that keeps us all in one place not noticing that our future is continuing forward without us.

Arbitrary: having only relative application or relevance; not absolute.

Relative: existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent.

Absolute: intrinsic; not comparative or relative; belonging to a thing by its very nature.

Synonyms for Arbitrary: whimsical, chance, capricious, fanciful, discretionary, injudicious, erratic, offhand, frivolous, optional, inconsistent, supercilious, irrational, superficial, irresponsible, unaccountable, random, unscientific, subjective, wayward, unreasonable, willful, dictatorial, autocratic, monocratic, no ifs ands or buts, bossy, despotic, overbearing, dogmatic, peremptory, domineering, tyrannical, high-handed, imperious.

• Arbitrary decisions, rules, outcomes are unavoidable, partially because we are subjective, sweaty humans.
• To apply multiple valid, acceptable rules that in combination offer additional benefit with no added expense is far closer to Justice than to get hung up on power, control, and faulty zero-sum thinking that punishes randomly.
• Instinctive faulty zero-sum thinking is more forgivable than learned, entrenched faulty zero-sum thinking which is perhaps more forgivable than contrived, manipulative intentional, harmful zero-sum thinking.
• Any effort to control by constricting parameters (such as in the exam scoring example above) is first instinctive in that the self preservation instinct (to protect one’s self from harm) includes one’s mental health of which self-esteem is a component.
• One positive treatise I found on self esteem suggested not comparing yourself to others and distancing yourself from negative people.
• I might argue that to compare one’s self to those less fortunate would actually boost self esteem.
• I might also argue that to distance one’s self from reality (which is often a synonym for negativity) is not a step toward self preservation if one (as they should) considers their descendants an extension of self.
• Thus when we constrict parameters, self esteem is boosted and the survival of Humanity is threatened.
• Self esteem is boosted by not only differentiating one’s self from lesser individuals (by making the rules) but also by differentiating these lesser beings from those lesser beings thus creating smaller, more manageable divisions and lessening the danger for an overthrow of status quo.
• And of course by thinking this through I have moved from instinctive to conscious to intentional.
• And now that I recognize that, if I do not reduce the whimsy by applying multiple rules I have consciously moved from a subjective, sweaty human to an injudicious, irresponsible tyrant.

The End.