So, whos paying for the ipod?

I was recently involved in a situation which reminded me very much of our class discussions. My roommates and I were about to go out and purchase an ipod player for the room. However, the one we wanted to buy was on the expensive side and we were trying to figure out who was going to buy it. Obviously, whoever ended up buying it would be the one who kept it for after this school year. Still, none of us wanted to shell out the large amount of cash. Finally, I put forth the idea that someone should pay a about half, and the rest of the roommates should combine to pay the other half. My rational behind this idea was that I everyone would enjoy using the player over the duration of the year, but only one would end up keeping it. Therefore, three of us should pay for our time with it and the fourth should pay for the honor of keeping it past graduation. After thinking this idea over we all decided that it was rather intelligent and went along with it. In case you were wondering, I was not the one who put forth the half on my own...

Anyway, upon looking back on this I thought about the various ideas of justice we have discussed in class and whether either Plato or Aristotle would agree with our decision. Honestly, I dont think either of them would. They would each try to make an arguement for one of us to pay for all of it. Now, seeing as I would not agree with such a conclusion, I am asking if I may have missed something... Would either Plaot or Aristotle agree with our conclusion?

If not, then I may be so bold to argue that their ideas on justice may be logical in some instances, but not rational in others. Personally, I think that there is always going to be reasons to argue for or against somthing and it will always come down to point of view. I do not think that there is going to be one optimal conclusion to every problem, and that one should be open minded to others views on what is just.