I interpret Arrow&#x27;s theorem as a statement that there is no universally-agreeable definition of &quot;fair&quot;. You can create local definitions of &quot;fair&quot;, you can get people to agree to operate with them, but somebody else can always propose a different, sensible definition of &quot;fair&quot;, and that definition <i>may</i> produce a different outcome. It also means that it&#x27;s reasonable to debate the effects of different definition of &quot;fair&quot;.<p>I&#x27;d say the entire point is precisely that these constraints, quite surprisingly, are too tight. You <i>must</i> loosen them. You have no choice.<p>It doesn&#x27;t mean it&#x27;s the end of all hope, it just means that it may not be quite as easy to &quot;turn a crank&quot; and get universal answers as we&#x27;d like.<p>I think a lot of people miss that Arrow&#x27;s theorem is less a political statement than a <i>mathematical proof</i>, and end up bringing a lot of baggage to it that is not justified. It is what it is; it isn&#x27;t morally &quot;right&quot; or &quot;wrong&quot;, it isn&#x27;t that it &quot;misses something&quot; or unfairly focuses on something else, it&#x27;s just &quot;true&quot;. What you do with it is up to you, but you won&#x27;t change its truth or falseness value by arguing with it any more than you can any other proof.