Comments on: Deserving It http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/04/26/deserving-it/ The Sweet Release of Reason Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:12:51 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Pithlord http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/04/26/deserving-it/comment-page-1/#comment-9452 Pithlord Mon, 01 May 2006 18:01:56 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/04/26/deserving-it/#comment-9452 MPG, Maybe the desert argument leads to Calvinism. If we don't deserve our genetic endowment, we probably don't deserve any contribution of the environment either. So we don't deserve anything. So anything good is a result of grace, and everyone should quit their damn bellyaching. MPG,

Maybe the desert argument leads to Calvinism. If we don’t deserve our genetic endowment, we probably don’t deserve any contribution of the environment either. So we don’t deserve anything. So anything good is a result of grace, and everyone should quit their damn bellyaching.

]]> By: MPG http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/04/26/deserving-it/comment-page-1/#comment-9207 MPG Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:57:39 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/04/26/deserving-it/#comment-9207 On Rawls's Desert Argument and picking up on your point about its scortched earth power, consider the following. No one deserves their genetic endowment. If no one deserves their genetic endowment, then no one deserves what flows from it. One product that flows from genetic endowment is good philosophy, and thus the true theory of justice. This theory commands a certain patterned distribution of goods. But since this flows from what's arbitrary from a moral point of view, we don't deserve it. Since we don't deserve the theory of justice, we don't deserve what flows from it. Therefore, we should not base any distribution on the theory. On Rawls’s Desert Argument and picking up on your point about its scortched earth power, consider the following. No one deserves their genetic endowment. If no one deserves their genetic endowment, then no one deserves what flows from it. One product that flows from genetic endowment is good philosophy, and thus the true theory of justice. This theory commands a certain patterned distribution of goods. But since this flows from what’s arbitrary from a moral point of view, we don’t deserve it. Since we don’t deserve the theory of justice, we don’t deserve what flows from it. Therefore, we should not base any distribution on the theory.

]]> By: Gil http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/04/26/deserving-it/comment-page-1/#comment-9071 Gil Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:26:44 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/04/26/deserving-it/#comment-9071 Will, Did you defend the free market on the grounds of desert at the time? I think that's what Bryan was talking about. Not whether you were EVER willing to do so. Will,

Did you defend the free market on the grounds of desert at the time?

I think that’s what Bryan was talking about. Not whether you were EVER willing to do so.

]]> By: Wayne http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/04/26/deserving-it/comment-page-1/#comment-9031 Wayne Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:24:44 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/04/26/deserving-it/#comment-9031 Great TCS article. This is why I love arguments based on moral intuition. "Clearly, everyone agrees with me, that their intuitional tells them X,Y,Z." "No, No, No. Everyone's moral intuition tells them ABC!" What a rock solid foundation. We all believe what Will believes because his intuition tells him so. Oh, and I love the last two paragraphs. We are responcible too! Why? Because Will says so, I guess. No No wait. Because Will thinks everyone agrees with him that we are responcible. That sounds right. Great TCS article. This is why I love arguments based on moral intuition.

“Clearly, everyone agrees with me, that their intuitional tells them X,Y,Z.”

“No, No, No. Everyone’s moral intuition tells them ABC!”

What a rock solid foundation. We all believe what Will believes because his intuition tells him so. Oh, and I love the last two paragraphs. We are responcible too! Why? Because Will says so, I guess. No No wait. Because Will thinks everyone agrees with him that we are responcible.

That sounds right.

]]> By: The One True Josh http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/04/26/deserving-it/comment-page-1/#comment-9005 The One True Josh Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:17:36 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/04/26/deserving-it/#comment-9005 The Rawlsian argument conflates MONEY and VALUE in a way that leftists would normally shy away from. What are they saying, that people with more money are more abstractly valuable? Even libertarians barely believe that. Hard work and talent create more wealth, and as such deserve more of that wealth. People who make no money, but generate a lot of spiritual value deserve more of... whatever spiritual value produces. This does not mean that Donald Trump is a "better" person than the Dalai Lama, only that Trump deserves more money, and the Lama deserves more respect from people who value his contribution. My value system ranks money higher than spiritual purity, but I'm not forcing that world-view on anyone. The Rawlsian argument conflates MONEY and VALUE in a way that leftists would normally shy away from. What are they saying, that people with more money are more abstractly valuable? Even libertarians barely believe that.

Hard work and talent create more wealth, and as such deserve more of that wealth. People who make no money, but generate a lot of spiritual value deserve more of… whatever spiritual value produces. This does not mean that Donald Trump is a “better” person than the Dalai Lama, only that Trump deserves more money, and the Lama deserves more respect from people who value his contribution. My value system ranks money higher than spiritual purity, but I’m not forcing that world-view on anyone.

]]>