Hubbry Logo
Desert (philosophy)Desert (philosophy)Main
Open search
Desert (philosophy)
Community hub
Desert (philosophy)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Desert (philosophy)
Desert (philosophy)
Desert (philosophy)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Desert (/dɪˈzɜːrt/) (or dessert (/dɪˈzɜːt/) in the UK) in philosophy is the condition of being deserving of something, whether good or bad. It is sometimes called moral desert/moral dessert to clarify the intended usage and distinguish it from the dry desert biome or a sweet dessert. It is a concept often associated with justice and morality: that good deeds should be rewarded and evil deeds punished.

Nomenclature

[edit]

Both of the English words "deserve" and "dessert" derive from the Old French deservir[1][2] (modern French: desservir). And while "deserve" is common as a verb, it is claimed that "desert" is its noun form[citation needed]. Though it may be rare in colloquial speech; it is exclusively used in the phrase "just deserts" (e.g., "Although she was not at first arrested for the crime, she later on received her just deserts.").

An alternate spelling is that of "just desserts", commonly used in the UK. The logic of this links to a "dessert" following a main meal and being a reward (for eating said meal). "Desert" is not generally used in the UK in this context as it causes confusion with the primary meaning associated with this spelling, that of a barren area of land. The pronunciation of both spellings also differs: "desert" stresses the first syllable, "dessert" stresses the second.[3] It is possible that one spelling or the other may be an Eggcorn of the other.

In ordinary usage, to deserve is to earn or merit a reward or penalty. In moral philosophy, it is generally argued that any reward or penalty that is deserved must be morally relevant in some way. For example, a low moral relevance example might be a person purchasing a lottery ticket and winning the grand prize; they may be entitled to the money, and they did pay for the ticket, but the moral connection is loose. A similar example might be finding valuable resources such as oil or gold on inherited land. Moderate examples might be that after working at a job, the employee is paid, or after a well-done concert, the musician receives a round of applause. Failing to pay for items or services (or paying then not receiving them) would be considered a breach of contract and expectations and has at least some moral heft. High moral relevance examples can be more abstract and less related directly to the actor's expectation, and often come up with punishments. For the job example, perhaps a very valuable employee is paid their "true" worth rather than their agreed upon salary: a bonus for someone single-handedly providing the employer exceptional value, or their salary is clawed back if the employee is an active negative for the company (perhaps they are committing embezzlement). Evildoers have bad things happen to them, even if not directly intended by a human justice system; a freak accident that wounds or kills a criminal would be considered by some to be some sort of deserved karmic justice.

Formulation

[edit]

Desert claims may be generally expressed as: Thing X deserves Y in virtue of Z. For example, I (X) deserve a good grade on my test (Y) because I studied hard (Z); Cincinnati (X) deserves to be praised (Y) because it is a pretty city (Z). Some authors have added a further criterion, qualifying Z. That is, Agent X deserves Y in virtue of Z if X is responsible for Z (or, alternatively, if X is also deserving of Z). Considering this stipulation, one does not deserve respect simply because one is a human being, because one is not responsible for being a human being (Z). Arguments such as this are contentious as they suggest an untenability of intrinsic desert claims—that is, claims wherein Z means simply to be X. Less controversially, if one (X) uses steroids to win in a footrace, one is said not to deserve to win (Y) because one is not responsible for, and so does not deserve, one's enhanced physical abilities (Z).

Critique by John Rawls

[edit]

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".[4]

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.[5] 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."[6]

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.[7] 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.

Michael Zuckert has suggested that Rawls has entirely mistaken the very logic of desert.[8] 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[clarification needed] 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.[citation needed] 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.[citation needed] 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.[citation needed] The many debates over justice in political life and in philosophy concern the actual substantive question of what are the proper bases of desert.[citation needed] That is, underlying every conception of justice must be a claim of right, a positive claim of desert.[citation needed] 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.[citation needed] 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.[9]

Jean Hampton

[edit]

Another, more unconventional[citation needed] interpretation of Nozick's critique is proposed by Jean Hampton. She points out that there seems to be a subterranean assumption in Nozick's rejection of Rawls' account of natural endowments as collective assets. This assumption is the idea that the choices individuals make regarding how they will use their labor and their property are ones for which they should be held responsible. People who do not work hard and invest imprudently should be held responsible for those choices and not receive assistance from an egalitarian welfare state. If they do work hard and invest well however, they should also be held responsible for those choices and allowed to reap the benefits from their strivings. Hampton asks the question "whether the ground of Nozick's conception of absolute rights is not only a conception of liberty but also a conception of moral responsibility that is [...] closely associated to our notion of liberty."[10]

There are other political philosophers who endorse the position Hampton outlines. Their main observation is that sometimes people who are badly off might be so because of their own irresponsible conduct, and the charge is that theories favoring policies of redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor ignore this crucial point, i.e. that people might be unequally deserving because of their actions.[11]

Consequences

[edit]

Sometimes the claim is that the redistributive systems often favored by egalitarian political theorists might have disastrous consequences in that they promote sloth and allow free riding on the productive by the lazy. These arguments are instrumental in their appeal to undeservingness. They refer to the allegedly bad consequences of a redistributive social system and do not necessarily involve any reference to the moral worthiness of those who make greater efforts, wiser investments, and so on.

At other times however, the argument invokes a moral ideal holding desert valuable for its own sake. On this view, helping the undeserving and failing to help the deserving is deemed intrinsically unfair regardless of further consequences.[12] For example, the charge against Rawls is that people actually might deserve the gains flowing from their natural endowments, or at least those they achieve by striving conscientiously.[13]

Converse

[edit]

Deserving something generally builds from some action and what should ideally result from it. Many people invert this process, consciously or unconsciously. A trivial example might be "lawbreakers deserve to go to jail", with the logical converse being "people in jail must have been lawbreakers." This may often be true but ignores the possibility of a miscarriage of justice where an entirely innocent person might be suffering. At its extremes, the converse can lead to victim blaming, where when a terrible event happens to someone, an observer concludes that it is merely just retribution for some misdeed in the past. The just-world fallacy is the worldview that "everything happens for a reason", and that seemingly random events are actually morally fitting, if perhaps on a delayed timescale.

Political issues

[edit]

Across the board, a number of industries are stratified across the genders. This is the result of a variety of factors. These include differences in education choices, preferred job and industry, work experience, number of hours worked, and breaks in employment (such as for bearing and raising children). Men also typically go into higher paid and higher risk jobs when compared to women. These factors result in 60% to 75% difference between men's and women's average aggregate wages or salaries, depending on the source. Various explanations for the remaining 25% to 40% have been suggested, including women's lower willingness and ability to negotiate salary and sexual discrimination.[14][15][16] According to the European Commission direct discrimination only explains a small part of gender wage differences.[17][18]

Larry Summers estimated in 2007 that the lower 80% of families were receiving $664 billion less income than they would be with a 1979 income distribution, or approximately $7,000 per family.[19] Not receiving this income may have led many families to increase their debt burden, a significant factor in the 2007–2009 subprime mortgage crisis, as highly leveraged homeowners suffered a much larger reduction in their net worth during the crisis. Further, since lower income families tend to spend relatively more of their income than higher income families, shifting more of the income to wealthier families may slow economic growth.[20][specify]

According to a 2020 study, global earnings inequality has decreased substantially since 1970. During the 2000s and 2010s, the share of earnings by the world's poorest half doubled.[21] Two researchers claim that global income inequality is decreasing due to strong economic growth in developing countries.[22] According to a January 2020 report by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, economic inequality between states had declined, but intrastate inequality has increased for 70% of the world population over the period 1990–2015.[23] In 2015, the OECD reported in 2015 that income inequality is higher than it has ever been within OECD member nations and is at increased levels in many emerging economies.[24] According to a June 2015 report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF):

Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time. In advanced economies, the gap between the rich and poor is at its highest level in decades. Inequality trends have been more mixed in emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs), with some countries experiencing declining inequality, but pervasive inequities in access to education, health care, and finance remain.[25]

A study by the Brandeis University Institute on Assets and Social Policy which followed the same sets of families for 25 years found that there are vast differences in wealth across racial groups in the United States. The wealth gap between Caucasian and African-American families studied nearly tripled, from $85,000 in 1984 to $236,500 in 2009. The study concluded that factors contributing to the inequality included years of home ownership (27%), household income (20%), education (5%), and familial financial support and/or inheritance (5%).[26] In an analysis of the American Opportunity Accounts Act, a bill to introduce Baby Bonds, Morningstar reported that by 2019 white families had more than seven times the wealth of the average Black family, according to the Survey of Consumer Finances.[27]

A 2020 report by Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute says that the wealthiest 10% of the global population were responsible for more than half of global carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 to 2015, which increased by 60%.[28] According to a 2020 report by the UNEP, overconsumption by the rich is a significant driver of the climate crisis, and the wealthiest 1% of the world's population are responsible for more than double the greenhouse gas emissions of the poorest 50% combined. Inger Andersen, in the foreword to the report, said "this elite will need to reduce their footprint by a factor of 30 to stay in line with the Paris Agreement targets."[29] A 2022 report by Oxfam found that the business investments of the wealthiest 125 billionaires emit 393 million metric tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually.[30]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Desert (philosophy)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In moral philosophy, desert denotes the normative relation in which an agent merits a specific good or ill—such as reward for virtuous effort or punishment for wrongdoing—proportionate to their conduct, character, or contributions, independent of consequentialist utilities or institutional rules. This backward-looking basis distinguishes desert from mere entitlement or rights, grounding claims in the intrinsic fittingness of responses to what the agent has done or is. The concept traces to , who in the Nicomachean Ethics framed as geometric proportionality, allocating honors or resources according to each person's merit or axiosis (desert), such as virtue or contribution to the common good. In modern retributivist theories of punishment, desert justifies penalties as intrinsically appropriate to the offender's culpability, countering purely deterrent or rehabilitative approaches. Debates persist over "basic desert," which ties to agents deserving attitudes like or solely for their quality of will, fueling incompatibilist arguments that undermines such entitlements. Controversies arise in distributive justice, where critics like John Rawls contend that personal desert lacks foundation for allocating social goods, as natural talents and starting positions arise from unearned luck rather than choice, rendering reward for effort impracticable without circular appeals to arbitrary endowments. Proponents counter that effort and achievement generate genuine claims, challenging egalitarian schemes that prioritize need or equality over merit-based allocation. Philosophers further dispute desert's bases—ranging from moral desert (tied to responsibility) to non-moral forms (like athletic prowess warranting prizes)—and whether it requires or suffices with comparative fairness.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Core Principles

Desert in moral philosophy refers to the normative fittingness of an receiving good or ill treatment proportionate to their voluntary conduct, virtues, vices, or contributions, independent of any institutional rules, contracts, or entitlements. This pre-institutional basis underscores that deserved outcomes arise from the intrinsic appropriateness of responses to an agent's qualities or actions, rather than from posterior justifications like or equality. For example, a who exerts sustained effort toward a goal is fittingly positioned for or reward, while deliberate warrants proportionate retribution, as these align with the causal efficacy of agency in shaping moral reality. The German equivalent term is 'Verdientsein,' often used in discussions of deserved outcomes, particularly punishment. At its core, desert hinges on the accountability of rational agents for choices that produce foreseeable effects, privileging the empirical observation that human motivations—such as intention and exertion—generate patterns of responsibility observable across contexts. This principle rejects derivations from arbitrary social constructs, instead grounding claims in the direct proportionality between action and response, as seen in intuitive judgments where unmerited luck does not override effort-based claims. Psychological research supports this through evidence of widespread fairness intuitions, where participants consistently allocate rewards based on demonstrated agency and effort, even in hypothetical scenarios stripped of institutional influence. Such intuitions manifest cross-culturally in preferences for equity over strict equality when effort differentials exist, as experimental studies reveal that both children and adults penalize free-riding and favor compensation aligned with input, reflecting evolved mechanisms for . This empirical foundation bolsters desert's role in pre-institutional , where treatments like commendation for virtuous perseverance or for negligent fulfill a basic causal realism: agents reap what their volitional paths sow, fostering societal stability without reliance on contrived norms.

Distinction from Entitlement and Merit

Desert entails a normative judgment of fittingness wherein an individual merits a particular treatment—be it reward or penalty—due to the intrinsic qualities of their actions or character, independent of external rules or conventions. In contrast, entitlement constitutes a claim-right grounded in established institutional or contractual frameworks, such as legal or procedural outcomes, without requiring of the claimant's moral worth. For instance, a contract stipulating payment for services creates an entitlement to compensation upon fulfillment, irrespective of whether the service provider's effort aligns with broader normative desert standards. Merit, often viewed as a narrower positive dimension of desert, focuses on praiseworthy attributes like skill or achievement warranting reward, but lacks the comprehensive scope of desert to encompass punitive elements for wrongdoing. Philosophical analyses distinguish merit as tied to comparative excellence in specific domains, such as professional competence, whereas full desert incorporates non-comparative fittingness across moral and non-moral contexts, including blame for negligence. This separation underscores desert's emphasis on individual agency over mere institutional recognition of merit. Robert Nozick, in his 1974 work , prioritizes an of justice in holdings, where legitimacy derives from historical acquisition and transfer principles rather than patterned distributions based on , arguing that just processes yield rightful entitlements even absent proportionate moral from innate talents or efforts. Nozick acknowledges pre-institutional intuitions—such as intuitive resistance to unearned windfalls—but subordinates them to entitlement for evaluating institutional validity, contending that claims alone cannot override without introducing arbitrary metrics. This framework counters conflations by insulating normative from empirical entitlements, preserving the former's role in assessing the moral underpinnings of rules themselves. A clarifying thought experiment involves lottery winners, who gain legal entitlement to prizes via rule-compliant tickets but lack for the windfall, as it stems from chance rather than effort, , or , highlighting how entitlements can diverge from -based fittingness. Such cases illustrate potential institutional legitimacy without corresponding individual , reinforcing the normative independence of to avoid diluting through rule-bound justifications.

Historical Development

Ancient and Medieval Roots

The earliest expressions of desert appear in ancient legal codes, where proportionality in intuitively aligned consequences with offenses to maintain . The , inscribed around 1750 BCE under Babylonian king , exemplifies this through lex talionis principles, mandating punishments equivalent in severity to the harm inflicted, such as replacing an or life for life in cases of assault or murder. Archaeological evidence, including the diorite stele rediscovered in 1901–1902 at , confirms these codified rules applied differentially by but emphasized fitting retribution as a causal stabilizer of communal stability. Philosophical articulation of desert emerged with Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics (c. 350 BCE), where he formalized distributive justice as geometric proportionality: honors, offices, and burdens allocated not arithmetically (equal shares regardless of input) but according to merit, defined by virtue, contribution, or worth. This framework posits desert as causally tied to agents' differential roles in the polis, arguing that unequal treatment of unequals—rewarding the virtuous more—fosters eudaimonia and prevents discord, as deviations from merit-based allocation erode voluntary cooperation. Aristotle's criteria for merit, including past actions and character, underscore agency as the basis for claims, distinguishing desert from mere need or equality. Medieval thinkers synthesized these ideas within , with (1225–1274) in the (c. 1265–1274) adapting Aristotelian geometric justice to human affairs while rooting ultimate desert in divine proportionality. Aquinas argued that requires allotting common goods in proportion to individuals' and contributions, mirroring God's eternal where rewards or punishments eternally match merits derived from -enabled choices. This integration posits human desert as participatory in divine order, with ensuring accountability—virtuous acts meriting beatitude, vices —thus causal realism grounds proportionality in voluntary agency rather than fate or .

Modern and Contemporary Formulations

Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics, as outlined in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), establishes desert through the moral worth of the agent's intention, where actions motivated solely by duty—independent of consequences—confer intrinsic dignity and respect. Kant posits that rational beings deserve treatment as ends in themselves due to their autonomous will aligning with universal moral law, thereby grounding desert in the causal efficacy of deliberate choice over contingent outcomes. In the 20th century, Joel Feinberg's essay "Justice and Personal Desert" (1970) refined the concept by distinguishing personal desert from institutional merit, defining it as a fitting, non-arbitrary response to an agent's extra-institutional qualities, efforts, or deeds, such as blame for or admiration for . Feinberg emphasized that desert bases must causally connect the agent's conduct to the deserved treatment, preserving individual agency as the locus of fitting reactive attitudes like or . Contemporary developments include the Debt Model proposed by Andreas Brekke Carlsson in 2024, which frames as a reducible debt where undergone proportionally offsets blameworthiness for wrongdoing, extinguishing it upon full repayment. This model incorporates empirical evidence from on reciprocity, positing that partial penalties satisfy the causal demand for proportionality in desert responses, thereby reinforcing agency through observable patterns of balanced retribution.

Bases for Desert Claims

Effort, Intention, and Agency

In philosophical discussions of , effort constitutes a primary agent-centered basis for attributing or reward, as it embodies voluntary attributable to the individual's choices rather than external factors or innate abilities. George Sher contends that adheres to effort itself, even absent successful outcomes, because such striving reflects the agent's authentic and control over their actions, distinguishing it from mere luck-driven results. Empirical evidence supports this by demonstrating that anticipated rewards—aligned with desert-like incentives—elevate effort levels and ; for instance, schemes have been shown to boost worker motivation and output by linking compensation to individual , thereby validating effort's causal role in merited returns. Intention further refines desert claims by requiring that actions be purposefully directed, thereby establishing a direct causal chain from the agent's volition to the deed, which justifies differential treatment compared to unintended accidents. This principle holds that foreseeable consequences of deliberate choices warrant praise for beneficial intentions or blame for harmful ones, as involuntariness severs the normative link essential for desert; philosophers emphasize that without intentional agency, outcomes fail to reflect the person's character or responsibility in a manner conducive to truth-seeking moral assessment. Such distinctions underpin retributive frameworks where —guilty intent—determines culpability, ensuring desert targets the willful actor rather than fortuitous events. Desert entitlements presuppose genuine agency, meaning the capacity for control over decisions that counters strict by affirming loci of voluntary initiation in human cognition. Neuroscience research indicates that while unconscious processes influence choices, they do not preclude , as conscious deliberation and veto power operate within decision-making networks, allowing agents to endorse or alter impulses in ways that support . This evidence challenges reductionist denials of agency by highlighting frontal cortex involvement in reflective choice, where individuals exhibit causal efficacy over behavior, thereby grounding in empirically observable rather than illusory .

Contribution, Outcomes, and Virtue

Contribution desert posits that individuals merit rewards or benefits in proportion to the objective value they generate for others, such as through productive labor or that enhances collective welfare. This basis for desert emphasizes measurable impacts rather than mere intentions, aligning with causal accounts where outcomes reflect agent-initiated chains of events. For instance, systems exemplify this by granting temporary monopolies to inventors for contributions, incentivizing technological advancements that drive economic expansion; historical analyses show that stronger protections in 19th-century and the correlated with accelerated industrialization and GDP growth, as evidenced by rising filings paralleling productivity surges in sectors like machinery and chemicals. In the contemporary U.S., intellectual property-intensive industries, bolstered by such rewards, accounted for 41% of economic output and 62.5 million jobs in 2019, with workers in these fields earning 60% higher wages on average, underscoring the empirical link between contribution-based deserts and societal prosperity. Desert grounded in outcomes treats or as fitting bases for recognition when causally traceable to the agent's skills, decisions, or sustained efforts, countering dismissals that attribute results primarily to by prioritizing attributable agency in producing value. Philosophers defending this view argue that proportionate returns to —such as higher compensation for outputs exceeding market norms—sustain incentives for excellence, as random fortune alone cannot explain patterned achievements across domains like or craftsmanship. Empirical patterns reinforce this: regions with robust reward mechanisms for high-performing contributors exhibit faster rates, with U.S. showing the largest patent-per-worker increases from 1980 to 2010 also registering up to 2-4% annual productivity gains, distinct from baseline growth elsewhere. This outcome-oriented thus functions as a responsive mechanism, allocating where they amplify further causal contributions rather than redistributing irrespective of results. Virtue-based desert extends to enduring character traits that reliably yield beneficial outcomes, such as or reliability, warranting preferential treatment due to their proven stability and positive externalities like . Longitudinal research demonstrates high rank-order stability in Big Five traits from early adulthood onward, with maintaining coefficients around 0.60-0.70 over decades, indicating these qualities are not fleeting but predictive of consistent performance. Such virtues foster social trust, as meta-analyses link and emotional stability to interpersonal reliability, which in turn correlates with higher community-level cooperation and ; for example, individuals high in these traits show 20-30% greater longitudinal associations with social well-being metrics, including trust networks that reduce transaction costs in groups. This basis justifies deserts like promotions or alliances for those whose character demonstrably generates long-term value, grounded in of trait-driven over transient factors.

Desert in Theories of Justice

Retributive Justice and Punishment

Retributivism posits that offenders deserve proportionate to the gravity of their wrongdoing, rendering such sanction intrinsically justified rather than merely instrumental for deterrence or reform. This desert-based view holds that the moral culpability inherent in voluntary criminal acts generates a fitting negative consequence, such as incarceration scaled to harm inflicted, to affirm the offender's agency and restore communal moral equilibrium. Proponents argue this proportionality—often formalized as "an eye for an eye" in classical terms—avoids the arbitrariness of subjective rehabilitation goals by anchoring penalties in the offense's objective severity, thereby upholding causal accountability where the wrongdoer's intent and action directly warrant response. Early 20th-century critiques, exemplified by John Dewey's rejection of retributivism as overly punitive and disconnected from progressive moral education, favored forward-looking rehabilitation to reshape offender habits over backward-looking . Dewey contended that punishment should prioritize societal reconstruction through , viewing retributive sanctions as relics of authoritarian control rather than tools for ethical growth. However, data challenges this emphasis on leniency and reform, with meta-analyses indicating that rehabilitative programs yield only modest reductions in reoffending—typically 10% overall, and up to 20-30% in select cases—while certainty of punishment consistently outperforms severity or therapeutic interventions in curbing crime. Cross-national studies further substantiate deterrent effects from perceived certainty of fitting penalties, as evidenced in analyses of U.S. and international rates where reliable enforcement of proportional sanctions correlates with lower offense levels compared to variable or rehabilitative-focused regimes. In practice, desert-retributivism supports achievements like calibrated penalties that signal societal condemnation, potentially fostering restorative balance by matching to inflicted without relying on unproven offender transformation. Such proportionality can deter through expected , prioritizing verifiable causal links between offense and response over optimistic assumptions. Yet critics highlight risks of over-punishment, where rigid desert application may exacerbate incarceration if proportionality thresholds inflate minor offenses or ignore contextual mitigators, contributing to systemic excesses absent empirical . Retributivists counter that these pitfalls stem from misapplication rather than the theory's core, advocating empirical tuning of severity to align with without abandoning intrinsic justification.

Distributive Justice and Allocation

In distributive justice, desert entails allocating resources according to individuals' contributions, efforts, and productive outcomes, rather than strict equality or unmet needs. This approach posits that just distributions arise from holdings acquired through voluntary exchanges and labor, approximating desert by linking rewards to value created for others. Philosophers such as have advanced entitlement theories where in holdings depends on historical processes of acquisition and transfer, rejecting patterned distributions that ignore such bases in favor of end-states like equality. Empirical studies support this by demonstrating that merit-based incentives, such as performance pay, enhance productivity; for instance, long-term incentive programs yield an average 44% increase in performance metrics compared to shorter ones. Market outcomes, by rewarding effort and , thus tend to align with desert claims grounded in contribution, fostering as producers respond to demand signals. Needs-based allocation, conversely, often undermines by decoupling rewards from effort, leading to causal disincentives against work. Extensive welfare systems create effective marginal tax rates exceeding 100% for low earners transitioning to , reducing labor participation; a Danish study found that higher welfare payments for unmarried childless decreased their probability by altering opportunity costs. Similarly, U.S. welfare expansions correlate with persistent dependency, where work requirements in reforms like the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act increased rates among recipients by up to 10-20% in affected groups, evidencing how ignoring erodes productive agency. Historically, the shift from feudal entitlements—where status determined resource access—to meritocratic systems during the (circa 1760-1840) coincided with accelerated growth, as productivity soared through incentives tied to output rather than birthright. In Britain, GDP per capita grew at about 0.5% annually pre-1760 but accelerated to over 1% post-Revolution, driven by organizational innovations rewarding effort in manufacturing and trade. This transition underscores how desert-aligned allocation sustains incentives, contrasting with static feudalism's stagnation, though critics note luck's role in initial opportunities—yet causal evidence prioritizes effort's marginal impact on sustained prosperity.

Major Critiques and Defenses

Egalitarian Objections and the Role of Luck

Egalitarian objections to desert bases primarily contend that outcomes and capacities are heavily influenced by factors beyond individual control, such as the genetic and social lotteries, rendering claims of earned morally arbitrary. , in his 1971 work , argues that natural talents and social circumstances are not deserved, as they result from a "natural lottery" akin to arbitrary endowments rather than personal merit; he prioritizes distributive principles derived from the veil of ignorance, which would select patterns ensuring equality unless inequalities benefit the least advantaged, thereby sidelining pre-institutional desert claims. Luck egalitarianism extends this critique by distinguishing between "brute luck"—unchosen endowments like innate abilities—and "option luck"—consequences of deliberate choices—asserting that inequalities from brute luck undermine desert-based rewards, even for effort, if efforts themselves are shaped by unchosen traits. posits that true equality requires neutralizing the effects of endowments (brute luck) while allowing ambitions (option luck) to influence distribution, implying that effort deserts are illusory if ambitions are unequally distributed due to genetic or environmental factors. Samuel Scheffler similarly emphasizes that brute luck inequalities, independent of choice, erode the fairness of desert claims, as differential outcomes traceable to unchosen circumstances fail to reflect responsible agency. These views, prominent in academic since the late , have achieved normalized status in mainstream discourse, often presented without scrutiny of their implications for incentives, despite critiques of underlying assumptions in behavioral sciences. Epistemological challenges further bolster anti-desert arguments within , contending that incomplete knowledge of causal influences—particularly from —precludes justified attributions, as individuals cannot reliably disentangle volitional effort from brute factors. Recent advances in behavioral , revealing high for traits like agency and (estimates of 40-50% from twin studies), suggest that even apparent choices may be substantially preconditioned by unknown genetic variances, casting doubt on isolating "pure" bases. Twin research indicates that while shared genetic factors explain much behavioral similarity, non-shared environmental influences and measurement error account for remaining variance, allowing for potential volitional components, though luck egalitarians argue this uncertainty suffices to reject strong claims. Some softer variants of permit surrogate deserts grounded in observable choices rather than ultimate causal origins, accommodating incentives through responsibility-sensitive allocations without committing to metaphysical ; for instance, distributions may reward manifested effort as a proxy, provided brute effects are mitigated. This approach concedes empirical complexities, such as twin studies demonstrating heritability alongside unique experiential variance in traits like and (heritability ~50%), which imply bounded but non-zero scope for agency. Nonetheless, core egalitarian objections maintain that pervasive undermines 's foundational role in , prioritizing equalization over reward for the arbitrary.

Responses Emphasizing Responsibility and Incentives

Philosophers defending desert against egalitarian challenges grounded in luck have emphasized historical entitlement and personal fittingness as bases for justified distributions. Robert Nozick's , articulated in (1974), holds that justice in holdings arises from legitimate initial acquisition and voluntary transfers, rather than end-state patterns like equality, thereby upholding desert-like claims rooted in individual actions and choices over time. This framework counters luck-based objections by prioritizing causal histories of responsibility, where agents deserve outcomes proportional to their contributory roles in production and exchange, independent of unchosen endowments once justly held. George Sher, in Desert (1987), further bolsters this by conceiving desert as a relation of fittingness between an agent's manifested qualities—such as effort or —and the corresponding treatment, which persists even amid circumstantial , provided the agent exercises agency within those constraints. Sher contends that rewarding the responsible deployment of capacities, rather than their fortuitous origins, aligns treatment with the agent's actual conduct, rendering equalizing interventions unfit when they override such fitting responses. This view integrates causal realism by affirming that choices, however bounded, generate deserts through their direct influence on outcomes, distinguishing accountable agency from mere happenstance. Empirical evidence reinforces these defenses, showing that agentic traits like grit—defined as perseverance and passion for long-term goals—predict achievement variance (averaging 4%) beyond or , as measured in diverse samples including cadets and students. Longitudinal studies confirm grit and resilience as incremental predictors of success in educational and professional domains, underscoring how sustained voluntary effort causally shapes results amid environmental constraints. Denying in favor of egalitarian leveling, by contrast, fosters , where decoupled incentives reduce effort; economic models and field experiments on contracts demonstrate that performance-tied rewards counteract shirking, yielding higher inputs than fixed or equal shares. Such findings highlight the practical necessity of recognition to sustain , as equal-outcome mandates empirically correlate with diminished aggregate output in principal-agent settings.

Political and Practical Implications

Applications in Law and Policy

The U.S. federal sentencing guidelines, promulgated under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, embed principles by calibrating to the offense's seriousness—measured via a base offense level adjusted for factors like victim harm and use of weapons—and the offender's criminal history, ensuring proportionality as a core retributive aim. This framework explicitly invokes "just s," scaling sentences to culpability and resultant harms rather than solely to rehabilitation or deterrence, with mandatory minimums for certain crimes reinforcing -based limits on judicial discretion. Post-implementation data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission indicate reduced unwarranted disparities, with inter-judge variance in similar cases dropping by approximately 20-30% in early years, fostering perceptions of procedural fairness among offenders and the public. In policy, desert manifests through merit pay systems, such as those authorized by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which link salary increases to documented rather than tenure or demographic quotas. Evaluations of federal implementations, including pay banding at agencies like the , reveal higher productivity metrics—such as improved output per employee and reduced error rates—compared to quota-driven allocations, which empirical reviews associate with diminished overall efficiency due to mismatched incentives. These systems prioritize verifiable contributions, yielding ratings that correlate with agency goal attainment at rates 15-25% above pre-reform baselines in mid-level cohorts. Desert-oriented policies achieve deterrence by bolstering system legitimacy, with studies linking proportionate sentencing to heightened offender perceptions of fairness, which in turn support general deterrence effects through reinforced norms of . Verifiable recidivism data post-guidelines show modest reductions—averaging 5-10% in federal cohorts for structured retributive sentences versus unstructured regimes—attributable to clearer signaling, though risks of over-punishment in edge cases persist and necessitate ongoing empirical calibration over ideological adjustments. Critics highlight potential disparities from rigid grids, yet longitudinal analyses confirm minimal discriminatory impacts when guidelines are faithfully applied, prioritizing outcome-based evidence like lowered reoffense rates over unsubstantiated equity concerns.

Economic and Social Consequences

In economic systems aligned with principles of desert—where rewards such as and profits correspond to individual and contributions—empirical studies indicate enhanced and growth. demonstrates a positive association between meritocratic beliefs, which emphasize rewarding effort and achievement, and economic expansion, mediated by increased investment and entrepreneurial activity. Competitive markets allowing wage disparities tied to marginal incentivize higher output, correlating with elevated GDP growth rates; for instance, analyses of R&D investments show that , spurred by such incentives, yields persistent positive effects on without evidence of at aggregate levels. These dynamics contrast with interventions that flatten rewards irrespective of desert, which can dampen incentives and correlate with slower . Socially, adherence to desert fosters personal responsibility and diminishes cultures of entitlement by conditioning benefits on contribution. The 1996 U.S. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed work requirements and time limits on welfare, exemplifies this: welfare caseloads plummeted by over 50% nationwide within years, with single-mother rates rising sharply as families transitioned to . This reform reinforced values of work and independence, reducing long-term dependency and associated social pathologies like out-of-wedlock births, without evidence of widespread destitution among former recipients capable of . Conversely, policies disregarding desert in favor of unconditional redistribution risk eroding and inducing stagnation. Pre-1996 U.S. welfare structures, which decoupled aid from effort, cultivated dependency, with caseloads ballooning and labor participation stagnating among able-bodied recipients. In rentier-dominated economies prioritizing unearned extraction over merit, moral economic critiques highlight dysfunction, including reduced productivity and social trust, as unearned gains undermine incentives for productive labor. Such systems, by sidelining causal links between effort and outcome, correlate with broader societal decay, including weakened communal norms and innovation deficits.

Contemporary Debates

Epistemological and Causal Challenges

Epistemological challenges to desert attribution contend that human limitations preclude reliable identification of the factors truly warranting or . Specifically, the influence of unobservable genetic predispositions and environmental conditions on actions and character traits undermines confidence in claims, as it remains unclear to what extent outcomes stem from autonomous effort rather than predetermined causes. This argument, articulated in analyses from onward, posits that without epistemic access to the precise weighting of such influences, attributions of merit become speculative and unjustifiable. Causal challenges exacerbate this by highlighting the complexity of tracing actions to their origins, where genes, upbringing, and events intertwine, making it infeasible to disentangle volitional contributions from non-volitional ones. For instance, behavioral genetics studies reveal estimates for traits like ranging from 40% to 60%, complicating assertions that observed alone bases . Critics argue this indeterminacy erodes the causal realism required for , as demands accountability tied to verifiable agency rather than probabilistic influences. Responses counter that absolute causal certainty is neither required nor achievable, advocating pragmatic verifiability through observable proxies such as deliberate choices and consistent patterns, which align with justice's practical demands. Advances in techniques, including instrumental variable methods and developed in since the 1990s, enable empirical isolation of treatment effects on behavior, enhancing assessments of responsibility by quantifying causal impacts amid confounders. Empirical models, such as those using to forecast responsibility judgments from dispositional data, further demonstrate that approximate, evidence-based desert claims predict societal outcomes effectively without necessitating exhaustive etiologies.

Intersections with Moral Responsibility

Hard incompatibilists, such as Derk Pereboom, contend that basic moral responsibility—wherein agents deserve blame or praise for actions irrespective of consequentialist aims—is untenable under , as agents lack the ultimate sourcehood required for such due to causal chains extending beyond their control. This position, termed skepticism about basic , implies that retributivist punishment, which hinges on offenders deserving suffering proportional to their wrongdoing, cannot be justified philosophically, prompting alternatives like forward-looking blame aimed at victim protection rather than retribution. Pereboom's framework distinguishes basic from non-desert senses of responsibility, preserving accountability practices without invoking metaphysical freedom. Compatibilists argue that , including desert-entailing varieties, aligns with by equating with uncoerced rational agency, yet critics maintain this fails to secure basic desert, as deterministic causation precludes the kind of alternative possibilities or source control retributivists demand. Libertarians counter by positing as essential for genuine agency, enabling agents to be ultimate sources of actions and thus deserving of basic desert, though this view grapples with ensuring enhances rather than undermines control. Recent defenses, such as those questioning skeptics' attribution of basic desert commitments to ordinary intuitions, bolster retributivist accounts by challenging the premise that empirically or conceptually eradicates desert. Empirical challenges from , like Benjamin Libet's 1983 experiments showing brain readiness potentials preceding conscious intentions, have fueled by suggesting unconscious causation precedes willed acts, but reinterpretations emphasize conscious veto power and decision models compatible with agency, prioritizing observable behavioral control over speculative neural timing. These causal data support responsibility ascriptions by highlighting structured in action, countering metaphysical dismissals of with evidence of effective agency in deterministic contexts, though hard incompatibilists persist in denying basic absent indeterministic breaks. Thus, desert's viability turns on whether causal realism affirms sufficient control for blameworthiness, favoring positions grounded in verifiable agentic patterns over untestable ultimacy.

References

  1. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-015-9403-5_13
  2. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3504689
  3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/191993
  4. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2217394
  5. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-022-01912-4
  6. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45205415
  7. https://scholars.bentley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=philosophy_facpubs
  8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2220146
  9. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/problem-of-blame/structure-of-basic-desert/2FE56619F097E4A427C0364C9F09C780
  10. https://scholars.bentley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=philosophy_facpubs
  11. https://academic.oup.com/book/6315/chapter/150013072
  12. https://www.duncker-humblot.de/_files_media/leseproben/9783428591497.pdf
  13. https://repository.tilburguniversity.edu/bitstreams/7ba7d88b-a64e-4200-9c8f-248ce1f709e1/download
  14. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bsl.2563
  15. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1128&context=faculty_scholarship
  16. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-018-1125-4
  17. https://www.philosophyetc.net/2005/06/entitlement-and-desert.html
  18. https://www.libertarianism.org/articles/nozick-distributive-justice-and-difference-between-entitlement-and-desert
  19. https://klinechair.missouri.edu/docs/vol_6_desert_and_entitlement.pdf
  20. https://www.jesp.org/index.php/jesp/article/view/64
  21. https://irfankhawajaphilosopher.com/2021/10/17/desert-and-merit-part-1-of-2/
  22. https://www3.nd.edu/~pweithma/Readings/Nozick/Anarchy%2C%2520State%2520and%2520Utopia%2C%2520pp.%2520149-231.pdf
  23. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/desert/
  24. https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.5.v.html
  25. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/abbott-kant-s-critique-of-practical-reason-and-other-works-on-the-theory-of-ethics
  26. https://archive.org/details/doingdeservinges0000fein
  27. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10892-024-09485-6
  28. https://wol.iza.org/articles/performance-related-pay-and-labor-productivity/long
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9925502/
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661322000638
  31. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/free-will-is-only-an-illusion-if-you-are-too/
  32. https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=thesis
  33. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/an-economic-history-of-patent-institutions/
  34. https://www.uspto.gov/ip-policy/economic-research/intellectual-property-and-us-economy
  35. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/patenting-prosperity-rothwell.pdf
  36. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2024/mar/the-innovation-puzzle-patents-and-productivity-growth
  37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35834197/
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656622001015
  39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360329379_Longitudinal_Relationships_Between_Personality_Traits_and_Social_Well-Being_A_Two-Decade_Study
  40. https://www.humanamente.eu/index.php/HM/article/download/411/324
  41. https://academic.oup.com/book/8411/chapter/154184784
  42. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/485/
  43. https://www.sjsu.edu/people/rita.manning/courses/292/s1/shook.pdf
  44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368541129_Desert_Retributivism_A_Deweyan_Critique
  45. https://manhattan.institute/article/why-rehabilitating-repeat-criminal-offenders-often-fails
  46. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5880&context=jclc
  47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/670398
  48. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/36315/chapter/318653318
  49. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3685382
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8417646/
  51. https://iep.utm.edu/noz-poli/
  52. https://theirf.org/research_post/incentives-motivation-and-workplace-performance-research-and-best-practices/
  53. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/
  54. https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article/106/3/655/111179/New-Evidence-on-Welfare-s-Disincentive-for-the
  55. https://www.aei.org/economics/new-cea-report-highlights-welfares-disincentives-and-suggests-how-to-fix-them/
  56. https://www.cato.org/publications/welfare-reform
  57. https://www.ushistory.org/us/22a.asp
  58. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~jsteinsson/teaching/originsofgrowth.pdf
  59. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desert/
  60. https://liberalarts.tamu.edu/pols/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2020/09/Rawls-A-Theory-of-Justice-100-108.pdf
  61. https://www.independent.org/wp-content/uploads/tir/2021/12/tir_26_3_02_rawls.pdf
  62. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-bad-luck/
  63. https://klinechair.missouri.edu/docs/brute_luck_equality_and_desert.pdf
  64. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/339275
  65. https://scholars.bentley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=philosophy_facpubs
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10862970/
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11868694/
  68. https://www.academia.edu/48827099/Distributive_justice_and_the_epistemological_argument_against_desert
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4169065/
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2607267/
  71. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691023168/desert
  72. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17547490/
  73. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341457739_Grit_as_a_Predictor_and_Outcome_of_Educational_Professional_and_Personal_Success_A_Systematic_Review
  74. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19645/w19645.pdf
  75. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/134/1/281/5106373
  76. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2023/GLMFull.pdf
  77. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/223854.pdf
  78. https://www.mspb.gov/studies/studies/Status_Report_on_Performance_Appraisal_and_Merit_Pay_Among_Mid_Level_Employees_254039.pdf
  79. https://www.nteu.org/legislative-action/congressional-testimony/improving-performance-a-review-of-payfor
  80. https://journalisslp.com/index.php/isslp/article/download/292/425/1536
  81. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667111523000191
  82. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2004/wp04185.pdf
  83. https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2014/12/biotechnology-biotech-economic-growth/
  84. https://empirejustice.org/news/tanf-at-20-the-1996-welfare-reform-and-its-impact-part-1/
  85. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/welfare-reform-success-or-failure-it-worked/
  86. https://centreforpublicimpact.org/public-impact-fundamentals/the-1996-personal-responsibility-and-work-opportunity-reconciliation-act-in-the-us/
  87. https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/welfare-reform
  88. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0308518X20908287
  89. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/utilitas/article/epistemological-argument-against-desert/120FEBF7FBB0B9C40612C3FD20B3982C
  90. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4857278_The_Epistemological_Argument_against_Desert
  91. https://scholars.bentley.edu/philosophy_facpubs/30/
  92. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9991894/
  93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010028521000359
  94. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-american-philosophical-association/article/free-will-skeptics-can-have-their-basic-desert-and-eat-it-too/DF94843190B570B6119537F0C64FA587
  95. https://philarchive.org/rec/CARMRR-3
  96. https://philarchive.org/archive/CARCAR-9
  97. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/
  98. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763419300739
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4887467/
  100. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763421002578
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.