Dear Jen: Tell me about tooth fairies and puzzle ethics.
This month, I answer two very different questions on who my tooth fairy is and whether you can ethically donate a potentially incomplete puzzle.
This month, I answer two very different questions in a sprint-type style format. In case you're interested, below are the two questions up front:
What is my tooth fairy’s name? What is your tooth fairy’s name? – Lilly from Philly (7 years old)
If you’re not 100% sure that all the pieces are in the box, is it ethical to donate a puzzle? – Real Puzzler
By digging into my question bag and picking 2 prompts, I am now in a state of depletion analogous to the potable water situation in Mexico City. So, in both cases, let's make it rain. Submit your questions here!
For Lilly from Philly (7 years old): Tell me about your tooth fairies!
Dear Lilly,
Thank you for writing to me and for taking the time to fill out a Google Form at 7 years old. I can't even get full-grown adults to do that! When I was 7, I was picking my nose and got in trouble for it. This is a true story and I have been waiting 30 years to say this: What the fuck, Miss MacMahon?
To directly answer your question, my tooth fairy's name is "Vanguard Information Technology ETF" and their sibling "Vanguard 500 Index Admiral CL." I know their names are long like a thrice married lesbian with an infinitely hyphenated last name. So, you can call them "VGT" and "VFIAX" for short.
I have a strong feeling that your tooth fairy is named "529 College Savings Plan." Ask your mommy! If she says, "What is that?" you can say, "Do you even love me?"
Although our tooth fairies are somewhat different, they all ride the same roller coaster called the "The Volatile Gambling Scheme of Investing." It's an up and down ride that no one really understands, but that we depend on because tooth fairy residuals pay for a room that is free when you are 7, but $10,000 a month when you are 77.
I know this is all hard to understand, so I drew you a picture and/or you may refer to how Matt Damon, Peter Thiel, and r/wallstreetbets undermine our hardworking, working class tooth fairies:
Additionally, I highly recommend reading The Big Short by Michael Lewis. Tell your mommy to read it to you at night, but only if you like scary stories!
Thank you for writing to me Lilly from Philly. I'm sorry about your football team.
Please floss,
Jen
For Real Puzzler: The eternal ethics of donating a puzzle not containing all the pieces.
Dear Real Puzzler,
When I read your question, I had a very strong, visceral reaction. What would give you the inkling that the puzzle is potentially incomplete? How hard is it to count the pieces? Have you ever seen a child on the verge of completing a zoo puzzle, victory on the horizon, only for it to be snatched by the jaws of a missing elephant piece? Why would we impart a lesson on said child that no matter how hard you work, life is an unfinished composition where you fixate not on what was accomplished, but on what you failed to do? Why would you do this to Lilly from Philly?
Why?
I have since let my cooler head prevail because I realized that this question cannot be answered by you or I – it must be answered by the recipient of your questionable altruism. From my perspective, the ethical consideration is whether the end justifies the means or whether the process of puzzling is in and of itself a worthwhile outcome. Let me explain.
Imagine our New Puzzler, so charmed by the possibility of spending hours reconstructing a rendering of "Starry Night" that has been broken into 1,000 pieces for reasons that I don't quite understand. Please note that I am not a puzzle person, so I imagine that this new puzzler is drinking chamomile tea and wearing a sweater that says, "I come in pieces."
From here, our New Puzzler must ask themselves the following questions:
Am I doing this primarily because I want the satisfaction of seeing a complete puzzle in the end?
Am I doing this because I enjoy the process of sorting my pieces into color piles, constructing the frame of the puzzle, and slowly making a broken thing somewhat whole again?
If New Puzzler gravitates towards question #1, you're probably a shitty, unethical donator because New Puzzler's primary value is wholeness of the object. If the New Puzzler leans towards question #2, then great job! You contributed to New Puzzler's enjoyment of the process – the outcome of a complete puzzle was never really the point to begin with.
Did you like my gross oversimplification of consequentialism? I mean, you did submit your question vis-a-vie a Google Form featuring a water skiing elephant. What did you expect?
But here's the thing – I imagine that many people will answer, "Yes, I am" to question #1 and question #2. It's probably because loving the process and the end product are both very desirable! So, where does this leave us other than feeling like a liberal arts college student exiting their introductory ethics class going, "Wait, so nothing is right and nothing is wrong and all human notions of rightness and wrongness are constructed, so the way I choose to live a morally just life is dependent on the ethical frame I believe in and the selection of said ethical frame I use is also a slippery ethical question? I paid for this shit?"
Real Puzzler, perhaps leave a note on the puzzle explicitly stating that you don't know if all the pieces are there and let the new owner decide for themselves if you suck? They can pick up the pieces and go from there.
(Dis)respectfully,
A former liberal arts college student who gladly paid for this shit (Jen)