The three main constituents of desert are deserver of the desert, deserved modes of treatment and bases of desert.
Deserver of the Desert
In his important work on desert and
justice Joel Feinberg formulated a series of desert claims which were not
challenged by people at large: a student might deserve a high grade for writing
a good paper; an athlete might deserve a prize for excelling in a competition;
a successful researcher might deserve an expression of gratitude for finding
something useful; a criminal might deserve the contempt of the community for
having committed crimes. Immanuel Kant advocated that a person should deserve
happiness for being morally excellent. In all the above mentioned cases, the
deserver is a person. However, Feinberg himself agreed that even non-persons
may also be a deserver. For example, a beautiful ancient city deserves to be
preserved. In political philosophy, predominantly the deserver is seen as an
individual or a group of people.
Deserved Modes of Treatment
When desert claims are made there is
an inherent understanding of the treatment expected out of it. To be precise,
what mode of treatment a person is expecting on the basis of desert claim.
Feinberg cites following as the deserved modes of treatment-grades, wages,
prizes, respect, honours and awards, rights, love and benefits. Gottfried
Wilhelm Leibniz and Immanuel Kant would include happiness among the possible
deserved modes of treatment. These are positive modes of treatment based on
deserts. However, there are also negative modes of treatment based on deserts
like condemnation, fines, penalties and burdens. Now, there is a third mode of
treatment based on deserts that are neither positive nor negative. Like a
student getting the grade of C. For that student who has put in minimum
efforts, grade is neither positive nor negative. Therefore, sometimes deserved
mode of treatment is beyond the boxes of benefit and burden.
Desert Bases
(a) Effort and Performance
It is argued that bases of desert can
be an effort (input made) or a performance (output). To highlight the
complexity of finding the right bases of desert, Michael Boylan presented a
case of two puzzle makers. The first puzzle maker was given a puzzle that is 80
percent complete, and he finished the puzzle by completing the remaining 20
percent. The second puzzle maker was presented with a puzzle that was totally
incomplete. He managed to complete 80 percent of the puzzle, and therefore did
not finish it. Boylan, noted that, according to a performance based evaluation,
the first puzzle maker would be the one who deserves the credit. However, when
effort based evaluation is done, the second puzzle maker deserves the credit.
The puzzle maker example raises, firstly, the question of ‘on what basis or
bases one should use to determine desert’. Secondly, it makes it clear that
both effort and performance can be relevant bases of desert and it is a complex
process still to determine how to correctly weigh the two in a given situation.
(b) Role of Responsibility
Some thinkers have argued that at
least some type of responsibility is a necessary condition for all desert.
Whereas some thinkers like Feldman have argued that, in at least some cases,
one can deserve some mode of treatment without anyone being responsible for the
desert base that gives rise to that mode of treatment. An example of
responsibility without desert could be cases in which a victim of theft is said
to deserve compensation even though that person was not responsible for having
the money stolen. In such a case, however, there is still someone, namely the
thief, who is responsible for the desert base. But sometimes there is a case
when no other person is also responsible for what happened like when people
suffer as the result of a natural phenomenon.
(c) Significance of Time
Predominantly desert theorists argue
that desert is firmly a backwardlooking concept. According to this view, a
person’s desert is based on his past and that past justifies claims of the
person. However, this view has been challenged. Some thinkers argue that
certain legitimate desert claims can be based on future performances. But
critics have highlighted that desert claims solely based on future references
cannot be relied on. There is a middle path also. For Aristotle, the idea of
distributive justice is based on just desert. The answer to the question that
who in a polity should get honour, wealth, power, offices and other
distributable goods and benefits lies in just desert. In understanding the
distributive justice of Aristotle, it is imperative to understand that for him
significance of just desert as a habit of past (backward looking) and relevance
of just desert as a basis for an action in future (forward looking) is crucial.
For Aristotle, in politics it is important that only those people who know that
they have certain deserts and how they will utilise these deserts in future for
the common use should participate.
Subcribe on Youtube - IGNOU SERVICE
For PDF copy of Solved Assignment
WhatsApp Us - 9113311883(Paid)
0 Comments
Please do not enter any Spam link in the comment box