Chapter 2. Appendix: The records read

Why should I follow rules I did not choose?

It is the question of a hypothetical person affected by a decision they did not take part in.

Rules one has not consented to may lack legitimacy.

The core that demands the reasons for common rules and their acceptability.

The context of which rule gives which disadvantage to whom.

The legitimacy of rules in general can hide the harm of a particular unjust rule.

Is there nothing we can decide together without the individual consent of everyone?

Checks the concrete effect a rule has on one's own life. Looks at whether there are channels for taking part in decisions and raising objections. Asks for the standard when consent, rights and the common interest collide. Considers the interests of beings that cannot take part in rules. Widens the scope of responsibility for rules whose effects reach beyond the state. Speaking of a greater order does not by itself create a reason for obedience.

When the performance ends and only the people on stage receive the applause, how does the toil of the friend who cleaned the rehearsal room and arranged the schedule appear?

It is a hypothetical amateur theatre company that has finished its first performance.

The work seen in front of the audience is the main contribution to the production.

The gap between the visibility of an achievement and the recognition of contribution.

The schedule texts sent every night and the hands of the friend who swept the floor.

Compressing it into recognition weakens the problem of changing the distribution of work and the actual burden.

If a name is added to the applause, must the same person clean up next time too?

Tells apart the joy of having one's name called and the fatigue of carrying on with the task. The time for tidying and coordinating can be included in the list of roles. Asks about the relation between the author of the result and the people who sustained the process. Does not count the resources of other life used in the production as equal to human labour. The distant labour that made the materials and equipment also stands behind the achievement. Whose contribution will a future observer who finds only the finished work miss?

If at the village meeting the proposals of the people who always speak quickly are adopted, where do the opinions of the people who sort out their thoughts slowly remain?

It is a hypothetical residents' meeting deciding the plan for a festival.

If one does not object at once, one has agreed.

The difference in ways of speaking and equality in taking part in decisions.

The proposal written up in a notebook after the meeting and the moment one could not cut in.

If only speed is corrected, the influence that position and connections carry may be missed.

Does fast speech represent the depth of the content or its support?

An opinion does not lose value because it came to mind later. Advance agendas and written answers make up for differences in speaking time. Can the various rhythms of expressing one's mind be included in decisions? Looks separately at the effects on life that cannot protest in words. Does not demand only simultaneous meetings of participants in several time zones. Can intelligence or consent be judged on the ground that a response is slow?

If the free neighbourhood museum is open only during the hours I work, is it a place open to everyone merely because there is no admission fee?

It is a hypothetical daytime worker who wants to go to the museum.

If it is free, anyone can use it equally.

The difference between formal openness and the actual chance to take part.

The closing date of the exhibition and a work rota that cannot be changed.

Stressing only users' access can push the working conditions of the operators to the back.

Who shares the burden of the labour needed to open late?

The regret of missing works one wanted to see is also part of the problem of access. Opening hours and transport change the effect of a free-entry policy. Can cultural opportunity be assessed along several axes other than cost? Asks whose point of view it is even in the account of life in a natural history exhibition. Differences in facilities between city and region change the meaning of the same free admission. A record of having left the door open cannot by itself prove the possibility of an actual encounter.

If the people used to the shared workshop always book its popular tools first, is it fair to set time aside for people who are learning for the first time?

Hypothetical situation: the residents' workshop uses online first-come-first-served booking, and beginners miss out on places while they learn how to use it.

It holds that opening the same booking screen to everyone is fair enough.

The difference between an identical procedure and the opportunity one can actually use remains.

The nervousness of taking hold of a tool for the first time and the plans of the skilled people waiting for a booking are left out.

The words that starting conditions will be taken into account do not by themselves settle the way of allocating and the exceptions.

Who must set the time for beginners, and by what standard, so that new unfairness can be reduced?

Has the start itself never been blocked for me on the ground that I had not yet learned? At the table where shared time is set, are beginners and skilled people there together? Can the promise of the same opportunity also be examined through the experience of actual use? For beings with different abilities, is the same threshold the same opportunity? Which is needed, making more of the limited tools or changing the rules for sharing them? If one's turn to start does not come even when the time is long enough, is the waiting fair?

Are the hand of the urban consumer gracefully swiping a smooth smartphone screen and the hand of the factory worker losing eyesight and joints assembling the small parts inside it equal?

It is a situation in which, in a hypothetical global electronics supply chain, the numbness in the fingers of subcontracted workers who tighten the precision screws of cutting-edge devices by hand tens of thousands of times a day has been exposed.

The premise that the convenience of technology and the elegant interface are only the visible realm, and that behind them still lurks the most primitive and harsh bodily manual labour.

The global injustice that lies between the smooth tactility of consumption and the brutal wear of production.

The trembling wrist of a young woman worker who did soldering with a magnifying glass to her eye and tweezers in her hand, without an error of even 0.1 millimetres.

The concern of reducing the complex industrial structure of the global division of labour to simple moral guilt and missing the effectiveness of structural supply-chain regulation.

Until advanced automated equipment is completed there is no choice but to rely on the precise hand movements of humans; can that be judged unconditionally as nothing but exploitation?

Am I conscious of the sacrifice of someone's fingernails and joints hidden behind the smooth surfaces of the electronic devices I touch every day? Can I join in a solidarity that refuses to buy products made in exploitative working environments and supports fair-trade devices? Should international trade organisations and the governments of each country legally compel global IT companies to guarantee ergonomic labour safety at the sites where parts are produced? What of the soil ecosystems destroyed in the cobalt and lithium mines dug to make electronic parts, and the screams of the non-human lives that dwell there? How will we dismantle the modern technological imperialism that keeps the digital cleanliness of the North by relying on the cheap manual work of the South? In a future in which all assembly is automated by nano-assemblers, how will the history of bloodshed that past human hands went through be commemorated?

At a work dinner where vegetarians and meat-eaters sit around together, should the vegetarian who grilled and ate only mushrooms beside the grill spattering with pork-belly fat pay the same for the meal?

It is a situation in which, at a hypothetical dinner of a workplace club, a barbecue restaurant was booked, and a member who leans towards vegetarianism was asked to settle a 1/N share even though they could not properly eat.

The principle that the pleasure of a shared meal is legitimate only when it does not force the tastes of the majority alone and guarantees the minority's rights at the table equally.

The sharp conflict between formal equality (equal settlement) and substantive justice (respect for dietary diversity) in the culture of shared meals.

The alienation of the one who picked at only lettuce and ssamjang amid the smell of sizzling meat, and the silence of not wanting to break the rare friendly atmosphere.

The risk of neglecting the effort of communication to find a compromise on the choice of restaurant and overheating the conflict with a moral dichotomy of vegetarian versus meat-eater.

Isn't it a nuisance to restrict the menu the majority enjoys, or to complicate the accounts, because of one's own special personal eating habits?

When I eat with someone whose eating habits or beliefs differ from mine, do I attentively consider their food first? When choosing a place for a group meal, do I have the courage to propose actively a restaurant where every member can eat evenly? Should public and corporate catering rules make mandatory a plural menu that guarantees diverse dietary choices such as vegetarian and halal? What of the wise way of sharing in the natural world, in which herbivores and carnivores coexist around a watering hole by keeping to different times? Amid the reality of meat-centred factory farming making the Earth's greenhouse gases soar, how will we connect justice at the table with climate justice? In a future society in which all food is printed out at once by molecular synthesisers to fit each person's ethical preferences and nutritional state, will conflicts over sharing the cost of meals disappear?

Is it pettiness that breaks a friendship, or the rightful recovery of a right, to demand firmly of a friend who borrowed a treasured textbook of one's major and has not returned it for half a year, 'Give it back now'?

It is the conversation of a student who, in the lounge of a hypothetical university library, having asked several times in roundabout ways for the lent book to be returned and having been ignored each time, now earnestly demands its return.

The legal-philosophical awareness that true friendship is not enduring unlimited neglect and encroachment, but is maintained only on a fair reciprocity that respects each other's boundaries and promises.

A firm sense of justice that refuses the free riding concealed under the fair name of intimacy and puts right the keeping of promises.

The awkward air that freezes coldly at the moment of the firm demand, and the psychological fear that the relationship may grow distant because of it.

The risk of over-interpreting the other's unavoidable circumstances or forgetfulness as malicious exploitation while stressing the legitimacy of setting boundaries.

Is it really a wise and mature course to turn earnest over a single book, corner a friend and crack a friendship of years?

Do I keep the honest trust of returning, of my own accord and within the promised time, the things I borrow from others? Do I have the courage to state my rights firmly yet politely, instead of with emotional anger, to a friend who keeps putting off the return? Should the judicial and dispute-mediation systems provide an everyday dispute-mediation service that settles amicably conflicts over the non-return of small items and money between friends or relatives? What of the vampire bat's system of watching over reciprocity, which remembers the individuals in the group that borrowed food or shared labour and did not repay it, and excludes them from the next cooperation? How will we mature, through a 'just keeping of distance', the harm of a Korean relationalism that trespasses on others' rights and boundaries in the name of jeong? In a future in which every object has an RFID chip embedded and returns by self-driving to its original owner when the loan period runs out, will 'the human promise of trust' disappear?

Is it an unfairness that infringes consumers' property rights and right to repair for an electronics manufacturer to monopolise repair manuals and the supply of parts and block independent repair shops?

Hypothetical situation: a citizen whose smartphone battery has swollen is told at the official service centre that the whole device must be replaced, and tries to buy only the part and replace it themselves, but a security lock is triggered and the screen does not turn on.

It is the modern idea of ownership that a thing I paid for and bought is wholly mine only if I can take it apart and repair it as I please.

The legal and ethical conflict between the monopolistic after-sales policies of giant tech companies and consumers' substantive ownership comes sharply to the fore.

The logic of consumers' safety and of protecting intellectual property, such as battery explosions and data leaks from the use of unauthorised parts or unskilled repair, is dealt with less.

It does not deal delicately with the industrial ripple effects of the legislative debate on the right to repair (Right to Repair) and the point of balance with intellectual property rights.

Isn't it a manufacturer's natural responsibility for quality to allow only authorised channels in order to maintain the quality and security of complex advanced devices?

Individual: What is the helplessness and anger one feels when facing the special-standard screws made so that I cannot undo the screws of my phone? Relationship: What of a relationship of mutual benefit in which one builds trust with the craftsman of an independent repair shop in an alley and extends the life of a device by a few more years? Society: What is the direction of a legislative movement to guarantee by law consumers' right to repair and to make manufacturers disclose parts and manuals by obligation? Other life: What of the fairness of nature, in which no particular company or individual monopolises the ecosystem's mechanisms of recovery and every living thing seeks recovery in an open environment? Planet: What is the ecological responsibility for repair that should be imposed on global tech companies to stop the mountains of electronic waste (E-waste) pouring out all over the world? Far future: In a human society wearing brain implants or cyborg bodies, how do we prevent the dystopia that will arise when the right to repair body parts belongs to companies?

For a young person living in a 1.5-pyeong goshiwon room without a single window to look outside, is a window not a luxury but a basic human right for keeping a humane life?

Hypothetical situation: a young person who, having no deposit, held out for two years in a 'meokbang' (a windowless goshiwon room) without even a ventilation window onto the corridor, suffering from a depression in which they could not tell whether it was day or night, petitioned the city council to revise the minimum housing standard.

It is the view that a window is not a mere architectural option but an essential public good for maintaining the human biological body clock and mental dignity.

It has the critical power of sharply denouncing the misery of the 'windowless room' that the urban poor suffer as a question of housing justice and basic rights.

The market's heartless paradox is hidden: that if fitting windows is made mandatory, the number of goshiwon rooms will fall, rents will rise, and in the end the very poorest may be driven onto the street.

It has the limit of trying to solve the problem by simple regulation alone, without the macro welfare policies of supplying public rental housing and supporting housing costs for the housing-vulnerable.

In a market where the building owner's private property rights and a demand for cheap housing exist, is it realistic to compel even the size of windows by law?

Individual: What is the misery that crushes the chest when one wakes in a windowless room and realises it is morning only on seeing the clock on the smartphone screen? Relationship: What of a tearful celebration in which one takes the hand of a friend who has moved to a room with sunlight, flings the window open and looks up together at the dazzling sky? Society: What is the need for an amendment of the Framework Act on Housing that makes mandatory, for non-housing dwellings such as goshiwon and jjokbang, a minimum floor area and windows that must face the outside air? Other life: What of an animal welfare standard holding that farm animals shut in narrow pens without seeing natural light should be allowed windows and outdoor runs? Planet: What is a global housing justice that guarantees the right to light and ventilation to the hundreds of millions of the climate-vulnerable trapped in the slums and underground dwellings of the world's megacities? Far future: When living without sunlight becomes common in deep underground cities or space stations, how will the inequality between a class that can enjoy natural light and a class that cannot appear?

Many people are waiting for the electric drill in the shared toolbox; how should the order of bookings be set to be fair?

Hypothetical situation: in the village hall of the near future there is a toolbox the residents share, and at weekends requests to borrow pile up. The manager is thinking over rules to set the order and the times.

This scene assumes that the number of tools is limited and that the booking list is open to everyone.

The compression leaves the concern about a fair standard for sharing common resources.

In the compression the concrete object and place, the electric drill and the village-hall toolbox, were left out.

The compression does not hold the concrete inconvenience and the process of coordination that arise in booking and waiting.

Rather than setting the order strictly, if it were left to people to give way to one another, wouldn't the conflict actually lessen?

At the individual level, how will the time spent waiting for one's turn make one change one's plans? At the social level, if the booking rules are transparent, will conditions arise for quarrels to lessen? At the level of humanity, if the habit of sharing spreads, could ideas about ownership change? At the level of life, if things are used together, will it become a condition for fewer hands reaching for new resources? At the planetary level, if sharing increases, will conditions arise for fewer things to be thrown away? At the cosmic level, could sharing what is limited appear as a life of depending on one another?

Is it a fairer measure to collect the set non-attendance fee to the letter from a neighbour who missed the regular cleaning than to impose more cleaning labour next week?

Hypothetical situation: on Saturday morning they discuss whether to collect a non-attendance fee from a neighbour who missed the building's regular cleaning for busy reasons or to give that neighbour an extra area to clean next week.

The premise is that imposing money at once according to the rule guarantees the equivalence of labour most neatly.

It compared the fairness of collecting money and of substituting labour as ways of sanctioning a breach of a common rule.

Detailed context such as the economic circumstances of the absent household or unavoidable demands of their livelihood was left out.

By confining the measure of fairness only to the strictness of enforcing the rule, it overlooked the emotional harmony of the community.

If the practice of being exempted from labour by money hardens, won't the sense of deprivation of the people who clean in person grow?

Individual: Carrying out a promised duty or paying the price is a matter of conscience and responsibility. Society: Only if the rules for maintaining shared resources are fair do distrust and hostility among residents lessen. Humanity: Agreement on communal labour and retributive rules is a basic principle that every settled civilisation has developed. Life: Cooperation that keeps the group's basis for survival clean is a biological defence that prevents the spread of disease. Earth: Managing the environment of the dwelling and clearing rubbish is the work of tending the physical ecosystem of the place one lives. Universe: It is a process of putting matter in order that puts energy in fairly in order to correct the disorder within a space.