[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
underserving as DS is of defense after his random spewage against philosophers who are the least likely group to rationalise their good fortune, I'm going to do it anyway.

Unless he believes he deserves his good fortune then his not being hypocritical at all. He may be wrong but apart from the philosopher bit I think his basically right. Not the feeling disgust bit, better to be a bit more sangine imo especially as our good fortune is aided by those who think they deserve theirs.

I can't see the problem with the 'deserve' idea. I was born into reasonable affluence in a sustained period of relative peace and economic prosperity. That's lucky for me, I didn't deserve it anymore than people who are born into suffering deserve it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

First, claiming that someone is "undeserving" is just as arbitrary and subjective as claiming that someone is "deserving", hence DS is a hypocrite.

Second, Sklansky is not simply saying that individuals are "lucky" or "unlucky" in their birth. He is saying that (apparently some) people do not "deserve", i.e. they are undeserving of, that which others have voluntarily given to them. Such a position is arbitrary and subjective. Who is David Sklansky to decide who deserves what? Which brings us right back to the first point.

Lastly, as I said, "deserve" doesn't actually have anything to do with capitalist philosophy. So attacking capitalist philosophers by claiming that they are rationalizing keeping what they don't "deserve" is a strawman. It shows a lack of understanding of capitalist theory, and causes me to doubt whether or not DS has actually read any.