You incorrectly assume the same number of drivers in both modes. With surge pricing there are more drivers, therefore more people get the drive, making it strictly better.
Chance plays no role here. It is a red-herring you invented and you can't see past it.
Let me simplify it for you with a realistic example: Without surge pricing, nobody gets to drive, because the weather is so poor. With surge pricing some daring drivers will take some passengers. Strict improvement, because some people got to drive. without: p == 0 with: p > 0
What is the primary difference here? People drove. It surge pricing moral in this case? Yes, because the number of drivers on the road increased compared to non-surge pricing.
You are missing the point. First group everyone had a chance, second group only those who can afford it has one. So someone IS worse of because of surge pricing exactly because now they have no chance. It doesent help anything that of those who can afford it there are more cars. Thats what it means to make an ethical argument. Cherry picking your control group isnt.
