Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
An ancient tradition in Western and Eastern philosophy indicates that justice is giving people what they deserve (Pojman, 2001). Social justice recognizes virtue and vice as two features commonly noted in the human being. The question arises as to whether these are relative. The ways of the modern world have deemed that virtue is to be rewarded and vice is to be punished. Society considers that user behavior must be justly rewarded. The assessment of social justice from a more recent date would appear to be more acceptable. Different philosophers have argued over the concepts of merit and desert. Pojman is one such philosopher whose essay Merit is being discussed here. Pojmans views do not totally agree with mine. Considering the arguments of Pojman and other philosophers, I have decided that modern-day philosophy possibly includes both merit and desert in its concept of social justice. I would like to investigate further into the subject.
Thesis statement
Both merit and desert have a bearing on social justice in the modern age.
Critical review of the Merit essay
Pojman points out that the early days of Greek society termed success as military success when merit-based systems existed. The highest noble class, the Agathis, was the usual meritorious one; it was strict meritocracy then. The outcome was more important. Later, Kant considered that intention was to be evaluated for reward, not the outcome. He had thought of the desert-based system or the pre-institutional desert. Rawls spoke of the liberal system or the veil of ignorance. It was argued that reward was unnecessary for anything inherited or came from the family or environment.
Pojman defines merit as a feature or quality that is the basis for distributing positive attribution such as praise, rewards and prizes . Demerit would then include the punishments and the negative attributes. Non deserved merit would include the inherited abilities. Merit refers to what a person contributes. Desert is involved with an action and how well it has been performed. Anyone can appreciate hard work which has ended in a good result. A person who has overcome poverty through his own efforts of studying well and secured a high-level job must be appreciated for his perseverance. Pojman has provided formulae for merit and desert. The term compensatory desert has been introduced here. It indicated that people who had to undergo evils or misfortune needed to be compensated. This compensatory desert also had a formula. Compensatory desert relates to an unfortunate person having a spot of misfortune like a malignant illness or an accident and needing compensation. Historically oppressed people also need to be compensated.
The incident of the Mickey Mantle episode where the popular baseball player jumped the queue in the priority list by virtue of his popularity for a liver transplant was a revelation. Some considered his playing as a contribution to society. There is an argument that says Mantle had the advantage of merit while others considered it desert. The two ideas are in conflict here. The term institutional desert means an entitlement that society makes. Pojman is trying to prove that merit and desert overlap in many instances. This is a viewpoint I agree with, hence the motivation for my thesis.
Does reward have to be due to merit? Pojman asks why it could not be due to needs. Society may be using the rewards to encourage further meritorious outcomes and punishments to prevent further bad actions. A society that rewards and punishes survives better and prospers. Occasionally the innocent have to suffer the consequences of such a practice. Though this may be true, I am of the opinion that innocents should never suffer. Social justice must be more defined and ensure that poor innocents should not suffer injustice in our society.
The literature in religious books of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and the Judeo-Christian scriptures have been compared. All of them speak of a person getting what he deserves. In Hinduism, the person gets what he deserves in his rebirth. The story about the distribution of talents to allow many people to prosper is a soul-touching one. However we also come to understand that God is willing to give us more than what we deserve if we pray for forgiveness. The bliss in heaven and punishment in hell is another interpretation of the desert. Pojmans views do strike a chord with mine here. However are we justified in attributing all the ill or bad that happens to a person to his deserving it? The best of people have the worst of experiences and it is humanly impossible to justify it by saying he deserves it! A person who has spent his whole life serving others may end up having no one to look after him and die in misery. Similarly a young, generous and happy woman does not have children. It makes one wonder what ills these people have done to deserve these injustices.
Desert is closely related to natural rights, not institutional rights. The Lockean notion of property rights is closer to the desert. Here one performs an action that allows him to extend his rights. The planting of fruit trees in an orchard for fruits and planting trees that are used for furniture are both examples of Lockean property rights. Karl Marxs Labor Theory of Value is close and the first phase of Communism used it.
What is required at this stage is a deontological argument to help us say positively that the goodwill prosper and the bad have untoward experiences but this is not available in literature. The argument for virtuous being punished and the bad being happy is also not available.
Other philosophers have also opined about merit and desert. Hume says justice is artificial and omits many broader principles of it (Miller, 1979). He believes that justice meted out according to desert causes sympathy and justice can come into conflict if desert is the baseline. When abiding by the principles of justice, character and personal circumstances should never be considered. The standard of merit and how to apply it in a situation appears to be a subject that can never reach a consensus opinion (Miller, 1979). Hume believes that material goods should be proportionately given to the people. Humes moral philosophy was mainly utilitarian but his assumptions were different from those of the utilitarian school.
Spencer on the other hand believes that justice means inequality of reward according to the capacities of the person (Miller, 1979). These capacities depend on heredity and environmental influences. Spencer pointed out that deserts were not measurable. He did not appreciate merit. Spencer believes that a reward strictly based on desert would provide maximum happiness. He also believed that a person should be rewarded according to his nature and consequent conduct (Miller, 1979, p. 186).
Edmonds (2009) considers that merit, by definition of the dictionary, is the quality or actions that constitute the basis of ones deserts and justice in our society is, in essence, the merit and/or deserts that we deem to be fair as reward or punishment in accordance to ones actions . He says that justice and merit go hand in hand.
Gratitude is one manner of rewarding a good deed. Similarly the desire to hurt somebody for hurting us is a reciprocal move. That both these emotions can be explained by desert is indicated by Henry Sedgewick. Adhering to meritocratic principles is a feature of animals too.
Pojman compares the earlier principles of justice to famous philosophers like Aristotle, Prometheus and Oedipus. The notion of justice was to create homeostatic harmony but the acts of Prometheus and Oedipus cannot be understood by us now. It may be thought that every action has a fitting response in kind and measure.
After critically reviewing Pojman and the other articles, I am firmly remaining on my thesis statement of Both merit and desert have a bearing on social justice in the modern age .
Conclusion
Pojman has provided his views on merit and desert in this article. The principle of fittingness shows that virtue is rewarded and vice is punished in proportionate measure. He concludes that rewarding virtue is through gratitude and justifies meritocracy. Cosmic justice thus shows that good should prosper in proportion to the virtue and the vicious should suffer in proportion to vice . The views of Pojman, Edmonds, Spencer, and Hume have further given impetus to my thesis statement that merit and desert are both influencing social justice today. I think that social justice involves both merit and desert.
References
Edmonds, T. (2009) My thoughts on merit and justice in America, Web.
Miller, D. (1979). Social justice, Oxford University Press.
Pojman, L. (2001). Justice as desert. Queensland University of Technology, Law and Justice Journal,
Pojman, L. (1999). Merit, why do we value it. Journal of Social Philosophy, Vol. 30, No. 1, Blackwell Publishers
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.