So the basic idea is this: if the most effective way of tackling a social problem involved improving the lives of people beyond what you think is fair/deserved, would you support it? It wouldn't make your life any worse, but it would make theirs better. For the sake of the hypothetical, pretend that there are no logistical challenges: someone else's life being improve means no harm to yours, or the the country, or the budget, or whatever. The question is purely whether you would support solving the problem even if it meant someone else benefiting from something you wouldn't. 

Examples:

- Free high quality education for prisoners or subsidized housing/etc for felons, if it would drop the crime rate to something ridiculously low. 

- Free rehab for say, meth or opiod addicts at places that resemble fancy spas, if it meant an end to the drug epidemic

- Free homes for homeless people, if the homes were nicer than what you could afford yourself, but it would mean no one would be living on the street, having to scrounge food out of dumpsters. 

- If people using food stamps could eat high end food every day (like lobster, steaks) but it would absolutely guarantee that no child ever went hungry in this country. 

I'm really interested to see how this turns out!