Arguments for Fairness:
* Survival of the fittest: In the wild, the strongest and most dominant individuals often get the most food. This ensures that the fittest survive and reproduce, passing on their genes. Buck, as the dominant dog in the pack, gets more food, which could be argued as a natural and fair outcome.
* Leadership: The leader of the pack needs to be strong and healthy to protect the group. Buck, as the leader, receives more food to support his role.
* Contribution: Buck earns his larger share of food by contributing significantly to the pack's success, particularly in hunting and defending territory.
Arguments against Fairness:
* Unequal distribution: Even if the dogs are fed based on their contributions, the disparity in food distribution is significant. The weaker dogs, like Spitz, are often left with scraps or denied food altogether, which could be seen as unfair.
* Lack of compassion: The pack mentality emphasizes strength and dominance over compassion and sharing. This results in a system where the weaker dogs are often neglected or even abused.
* Human influence: The humans' intervention in the pack hierarchy, training dogs for sledding, further disrupts any natural balance in food distribution.
Ultimately, the "fairness" of food division in "The Call of the Wild" depends on your perspective. It aligns with the brutal realities of survival in the wild, where strength and dominance are valued above equality. However, it also exposes the inherent cruelty and inequality inherent in the pack mentality.
It's important to remember that "The Call of the Wild" is a fictional story exploring themes of primal instincts, survival, and the human-animal relationship. It's not meant to be a literal representation of how dogs should be treated, and it certainly doesn't advocate for such a system in our society.