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 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.
From the perspective of those who can afford surge pricing this is an improvement not for those who cant.
Those who can't afford it are at the same position, their status hasn't changed. Without it, nobody can use the taxis, with it, rich can use taxis, non-rich still can't. Surge pricing is strictly an improvement.
Another example: I provide food for a standard price. That price is determined by the weather. I can't control the weather, so I can't control the price. If the weather is poor, it affects production, the price goes up. I still guarantee to provide the food, yet less people can afford it. It would be strictly worse to stop production of food in case of poor weather.
Don't you see the fallacy here. Tobacco was carved-out primarily because of their unreasonably aggressive lawsuits and not because tobacco is unhealthy. Using reason, we should ban either all companies, because all companies have the power to abuse the system, or ban all companies that are producing arguably unhealthy products. They did neither of those.
^ The mentality that brought us the security theater at the TSA, the incredibly invasive surveillance of the internet by simply collecting everything on it, and continued reduction of personal rights in favor of "security". Enjoy your fallacious arguments folks: hasty generalization, cherry picking, anecdotes, appeals to emotion and fear; some of them shown in the parent comment, ... until you wake up.
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.