Deserving and worthy?
What does it mean to deserve something? Money, happiness, life, praise? It seems to me that when someone is asked if someone deserves something they're really asking if someone else deserves it more if it is just scarce enough. If it is common like water people generally don't question if a person deserve not to go thirsty. Is there anything we inherently deserve? Something that we are always worth of?
Comments (54)
Assuming you are talking about drinking water, water is common? You should talk to people from countries where water is severely commodified. The entire world is heading in that direction.....where people without money to buy water will have to ration it. Water is "common"? Except without water there would be no life?
Quoting TiredThinker
You were gifted water for free. That's plenty deserving. One questions if we are deserving of it at all.
Quoting TiredThinker
Insignificant, in contrast to water.
I think a closely related concept are things like human rights/natural rights. What does it mean to be born with human rights and who gets to decide what these rights are?
I think traditionally, people (especially from a religious perspective) value life, especially human life, over material things. As a result, the argument is people are worthy of life by virtue of being born, as they have immeasurable value to God. Of course, from a secular perspective, this argument can be rejected, and hence secular morality systems like utilitarianism allow the designation of a value to human life (be it monetary, etc).
Personally, I think our idea of deserving comes down to some sort of transaction. Somebody deserves something because they have either done something for us that we deem it appropriate to reward them, or we hope that by rewarding them, we will get something in return in the future.
H
I would say happiness but the concept itself is so abstract that depends on how each person interprets it.
~William Munny, in Unforgiven
It isn't about what you do or don't deserve, it is about what you do or don't do.
The fallacy you are committing is to confuse a concept with its content. I know you people like labels, so let's call it the 'total spanner' fallacy.
Here are some instances of it: we have the concept of a table. Therefore tables are concepts. We have the concept of a house. Therefore a house is a concept. We have the concept of a meal. Therefore a meal is a concept. I have the concept of my neighbour. Therefore my neighbour is a concept. And so on.
Concepts are 'of' things. And what they are 'of' is not a concept, with the exception of concepts of concepts.
Desert is evaluative, meaning that to judge that a person deserves something incorporates a judgement that it would be good if they received it.
We can also say that if a person deserves something, then it is good if they receive it. (The opposite does not hold, however). And we can note too that if a person does not get what they deserve then this constitutes an injustice.
And we can also note that when it comes to deserving harm, it is only our own actions that can create it. That is, no matter what I do, that is not going to make you deserve harm. We each have a monopoly on making ourselves deserve harm.
And we can also note that there is no necessary connection between desert and moral obligation. That you deserve x does not mean that anyone is obliged to give it to you. It 'can' give rise to such obligations, but there is no essential connection.
Above I have described some of desert's features, not said what it is. What it is in itself is an attitude of God.
How do we determine what we should strive to have for ourselves that isn't selfish (assuming existence itself isn't selfish) and isn't taking from others that are in more need? We seem to do this intuitively, but we never really make deserving objective?
These questions seem off topic. The answer is that we consult our reason and the reason of others.
But note, to deserve something is not of a piece with there being an obligation to provide it.
"It is right to give x to Roger" does not mean the same as "Roger deserves x".
The OP was about desert, not moral obligation. That a person deserves something can give rise to there being an obligation to provide it, but someone can deserve something and no one be obliged to provide it (a rapist deserves to be raped, for instance, but it would be wrong to do such a thing) and similarly, we can be obliged to give someone something they do not deserve.
I do not know what you mean by 'objective' in this context. Whether a person deserves something is not a matter that is constitutively determined by us. I can't make you deserve something just by thinking you deserve it.
I concur! My example-based argument was specific to only one type of deserving/undeserving. Looks as though it can't be generalized.
For it to be reasonable to expect a certain outcome is not the same as thinking the outcome is deserved. Given how the clouds look I expect it will rain shortly. That does not mean I think rain is deserved.
In your example it is the fact a person has expended some effort that makes them deserve something, not the fact what they have done will likely yield a certain outcome.
That's it! Effort spent then is exactly what people intuit it to be - an investment - and it goes without saying [s]everyone[/s] most expect a return (break even or profit).
Nonetheless, I'm not entirely off the mark if one realizes that effort is just a kind of cause, an effect is anticipated. However, there doesn't seem to be a cause-like consistency to the effect (bad things happen to good peeps and good things happen to bad peeps); to that extent the concepts herein discussed are non-causal.
Again you demonstrate your pedestrian thinking. Deserts to tables are all human labels for constructs natural and built. A table has its own history of development from any flat surface to any modern table design. There is no BS platonic ideal of 'table' or 'desert.' Many deserts contain a large variety of life and oasis etc. People live and procreate in desserts. Do you think a dessert or a table is inherently associated in any way with the word 'deserves?'
I stated that 'deserve' was a human concept not dessert or table.
Again Mr pedestrian, you make trivial unimportant points. People expend effort which will produce an outcome, who cares if YOU think they deserve a reward or not! You award yourself significance that only exists in your own head. Your thoughts about who deserves what can be completely ignored by everyone just like your BS viewpoints about antinatalism. Does this not demonstrate to you that your personal application of the human concept of 'deserves,' may not influence the outcome of any event AT ALL or else it might have an effect on the outcome of some event. That's as far as it goes.
The OP is a political question imo, its up to humans to organise and establish global human rights.
Do all humans 'deserve' water, food, shelter? YES is the answer imo but only if they enforce it. I don't really care how or why each little armchair philosopher muses about the labels involved. I care much more about ensuring all basic global human rights are established and are permanent and unassailable.
I know you don't. It's just another consequence of your inability to think deeper than you currently do. As long as you are not taken too seriously you and your antinatalist confusions will remain harmless.
Just like the sandwich board people with 'the end of the world is nigh' scrawled on their boards and in their psyche. :death: :flower:
If you are then you are way overpaid!
No, you are absolutely awful at it. Don't try to dance with me, you pathetic amateur. It would take you the rest of your life to learn even the basic steps.
Did you hope that I would type an answer that would fall for your little amateur wordplay?
:lol: Don't try your sad little bar....tricks on me you infant.
I try to understand the person, not their job. Everything you do, and everything you experience influences everything you are. I like the old deep question, 'who are you?'
You could be the most academically qualified ............ ever and still be a vile human being.
You peddle antinatalism so you are not a deep thinker and as long as you advocate for such BS you never will be, no matter what your profession is.
The fact that you just attempted childish wordplay bar..tricks on me shows your sour personality.
You need to think more about who and what you are Mr professional thinker!
My question was whether a professional thinker is likely to be a shallow thinker. And the answer is 'no'. They're likely to be a deep thinker.
So, a professional thinker is likely to be a deep thinker. And a shallow thinker is unlikely to be able to detect deep thinking when they encounter it. Hence this.
I understand your frustration that you cant lead me or direct or manipulate our exchange.
That's why you are reduced to trying to answer your own questions the way the man in your mirror craves them to be answered. The way that allows you to get the jollies you so crave. They are delusional.
The best you could do is learn, as a man does.
Grow up bar..tricks, take off your big awkward clown clothes and learn to debate like a man.
Stop preaching your antinatalist BS.
Aw didums! Ask your mommy or a philosopher you like, for a hug, even a virtual philosopher might help!
I suspect you do create more laughter than I bar..tricks, especially when you try to type philosophy or antinatalism.
Look, you're derailing this thread. It's on moral desert. I said some things about moral desert - true things. Such as that it is always a person's, that we can't affect another person's desert of harm, and that an injustice is what we have if a person does not get what they deserve.
So far as I can tell you've not engaged with any of this.
Don't throw stones in the water if you can't handle it when you get swapped by my returned waves.
Anyone who wants to post on this thread will do so. This thread is not derailed as it's about the issue of what people deserve and what they are worthy of. Your insulting and arrogant manner towards others is worthy of my disdain and you deserve to be exposed as the misanthrope you are.
Now, once again, address the OP. Say something about desert. Not about me. About desert. And if I disagree with you and explain to you why your view is wrong, respond to the criticism rather than say something about me. See? Learn to handle criticism.
Deserts contain life!
Quoting Bartricks
I have been delivering what you deserve for a while now.
Quoting Bartricks
If you stick to doing that when you respond to others then I will comply with your request.
If you continue to be the obnoxious p**** you can be towards others then you will keep getting what you deserve in return bar..tricks! Learn little bar..tricks be a big boy now.
I don't know what that means.
Quoting universeness
I think that's an attempt at wit. It's hard to tell.
Quoting universeness
Oh dear, D for effort. Again, try and engage with the topic.
But real deserts contain life and life persists and procreates and reproduces despite your dimwitted protestations.
Quoting Bartricks
Do you feel qualified to grade others bar..tricks? Being such a shallow thinker yourself!
[b]One of the most controversial rejections of the concept of desert was made by the political philosopher John Rawls. Rawls, writing in the mid to late twentieth century, claimed that a person cannot claim credit for being born with greater natural endowments (such as superior intelligence or athletic abilities), as it is purely the result of the "natural lottery". Therefore, that person does not morally deserve the fruits of his or her talents and/or efforts, such as a good job or a high salary. However, Rawls was careful to explain that, even though he dismissed the concept of moral Desert, people can still legitimately expect to receive the benefits of their efforts and/or talents. The distinction here lies between Desert and, in Rawls' own words, "Legitimate Expectations".
Rawls' remarks about natural endowments provoked an often-referred response by Robert Nozick. Nozick claimed that to treat peoples' natural talents as collective assets is to contradict the very basis of the deontological liberalism Rawls wishes to defend, i.e. respect for the individual and the distinction between persons. Nozick argued that Rawls' suggestion that not only natural talents but also virtues of character are undeserved aspects of ourselves for which we cannot take credit, "can succeed in blocking the introduction of a person's autonomous choices and actions (and their results) only by attributing everything noteworthy about the person completely to certain sorts of 'external' factors. So denigrating a person's autonomy and prime responsibility for his actions is a risky line to take for a theory that otherwise wishes to buttress the dignity and self-respect of autonomous beings."
Nozick's critique has been interpreted in different ways. The conventional understanding of it is as a libertarian assessment of procedural justice, which maintains that while it might be true that people's actions are wholly or partly determined by factors that are morally arbitrary, this is irrelevant to assignments of distributive shares. Individuals are self-owners with inviolable rights in their bodies and talents, and they have the freedom to take advantage of these regardless of whether the self-owned properties are theirs for reasons that are morally arbitrary or not.
Others have suggested that Rawls has entirely mistaken the very logic of desert. If justice is getting what one is due, then the basis of desert must ultimately be undeserved. However, desert is a relational concept that expresses a relationship between a deserved and a basis of desert. It simply destroys the character of desert to demand, as Rawls does, that the basis of desert be itself deserved. For example, if we say a man deserves some primary good because of some quality or action "Y", we can always ask, as Rawls does, "but does he deserve 'Y'?" and so on. We then either have an infinite regress of bases of desert or arrive at some basis, some beginning point, which the individual cannot claim to have deserved or to be responsible for, but only to have or have been given by nature. After all, no human being exists causa sui; even to reduce the basis of claims to the very narrow one of life itself reveals Rawls' difficulty: surely no one can "deserve" or "claim credit for" their own existence.
To demand, as Rawls does, that no just claim rest on an undeserved base simply means that we must cease speaking about justice, for on the basis of that demand there can never be any just claims - not even for equality. Rawls' analysis of justice rests on a notion of desert which violates the concept of desert and therefore does not provide a more precise notion of the bases of desert, but rather dissolves entirely the concept of desert and with it justice. The many debates over justice in political life and in philosophy concern the actual substantive question of what are the proper bases of desert. That is, underlying every conception of justice must be a claim of right, a positive claim of desert. The great failing of Rawls' argument is that he provides no substantive basis for a claim right or desert; but this failing is, paradoxically, also the source of the great appeal or excitement about Rawls' theory. His approach seems to avoid the difficulties of the traditional debates and the value questions they necessarily raise and yet seems to enable him to discuss normative questions such as justice. [/b]
Do you really think there is anything here that supports antinatalism or is any such connection merely just conflations based on your shallow thinking?
1. Karma (ethics), as mentioned previously deserving/undeserving is about causation, moral in this case.
2. Justice/Vengeance (Iustitia/Erinyes). Getting one's just desserts (related to karma but is specific to evil and its alleged reciprocal consequences)
3. Inverse consequences (sometimes the effect of an action is opposite of what's the norm, which is to say that what we're dealing with here is quasi/pseudo-causation; if you disagree some metaphysics is in order)
4. Reciprocity/tit for tat/quid pro quo (game theory; action = reaction, vide Newton's 3[sup]rd[/sup] law)
5. Miracles (the :halo: must break the rule/law action = reaction i.e. they must back down, make the sacrifice, compromise in a confrontation and they must refuse/not expect rewards/appreciations for their good deeds; the :naughty: if you notice don't violate the aforementioned law as we're, on the whole, wicked/twisted. Evil doesn't do miracles).
You either deserve it and don't have it or deserved it and do have it.
Deserve means, if there is a moderator, a product is rightly yours (even though you may not get what's rightly yours), or, if there is no moderator, you are in 'pole position' for it's rights.
It seems to be a past and present tense word without a future tense...
Second, wikipedia is written by enthusiastic amateurs. So it's a bit like citing a post from someone here. It's almost certainly going to be shot through with clumsy mistakes. As it is in this case: Rawls does not reject desert, indeed his whole case appeals to it. Maybe read him, not wikipedia pages on him (although don't actually do that as he's an overrated twit and a dull read).
Third, make an argument.
You bore me now bar..tricks! You are a lost child.
I don't care what you do bar..tricks, you are just white noise to me now.
I think it's a mostly modern scientific view of human biology and human economy that allows us to think of ourselves as organisms with fundamental needs. Without which, we would ignorantly go about catering to consumption drives, and in that world-view, in that view of human nature, we'd be less likely to concur that human beings deserve anything.
That isn't how it is. We now know what is required for survival and well-being, so its left to us, as it has been, to work towards abundance and productivity.
More than ever before, we all deserve a right to THRIVE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-s
This deserves a savage beating! :brow: