Exercise in Equality

I'm supposed to be working on a paper for school. I just met with my professor and got a pretty positive review so I thought I would take time for another exception.

Hypothetical 1: Suppose my friends and I are working on making dinner. We both do our best to help where we can. I end up preparing three-fourths of the meal. My friend ends up preparing one-fourth. When it comes time to eat, I get three-fourths of the meal and my friends gets one-fourth.

Q1: Is this equal?
Yes: We each got the same amount we put in.
No: I have more than my friend

Q2: Is this fair?
Yes: Same reason as above
No: Since we both did all we could do, we should share the portions equally.

Hypo 2: Same situation as above with this addition: My friend is very poor, weak, hungry and didn't get to go to cooking school like I did. Furthermore, I get to eat meals like this everyday.

Q3: Is the division of the food moral?

Q4: Does this change your answer to Q1 or Q2?

Q5: Who decides how the food is allocated?
This hypothetical shows me that our political persuasions can be purely based off definitions--how you believe fairness and equality are measured. Also, it shows me that our persuasions can be influenced by our moral compasses.

In my torts class we referred to a 1897 judge's opinion stating that "with purely moral obligations the law does not deal." I completely reject that statement (and, as it turns out, so did the common law). And I don't see why people would make that argument today. The principles of tort law itself are predicated on moral theories. The rules on discovery in Civil Procedure were designed to curtail practice procedures that were deemed wrongful. Real Property law requires sellers of real estate to disclose certain types of information it considers wrongful to keep secret--and holds a party accountable for lying! The more I learn about the law, the more I find that notions of morality can not only influence laws, but drive them. In my view, saying that the law doesn't deal with morality is short-sighted and ignorant. Whatever side of an issue your moral compass leads you, so be it. But don't try to say that morals are outside the scope of law. That's absurd.