Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the problem with the 'deserve idea' the deserve idea? Iow, if you don't believe in a force that goes around handing out dollops of 'deserve credits', where does the idea of an objective 'deserve' grab a toe hold on reality.

That you were forunate/lucky doesn't translate into deserving or not deserving, which is a totally different concept ??? 'Deserve' seems to dictate that there are some promises or implied promises of some specific result arising from some specific act or circumstance. "I cut the lawn, I deserve to get paid."
But being born doesn't come with any of those, we're born naked and whining, and adjusting to life entails moving away from both of those conditions.
'Deserve' is a property of social contract, not an inherent property of newborns.
what am I missing?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I wish I could have said this so easily.

I would only modify your example to be: "You agreed to pay me to cut the lawn. I cut the lawn. I deserve to get paid."

[chezlaw]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe, I doubt it as I think DS can give a workable defintion. If not he is just making a mistake, its allowed.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be unreasonable but we don't deserve to be born into an affluent society that can voluntarily give us a lot. Footballers get paid a lot today, 50 years ago they got paid very little, today's footballers are no more serving then those 50 years ago they just got lucky. they didn't do anything to bring about the state of affirs where they get paid more.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, as I said, "deserve" doesn't actually have anything to do with capitalist philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, DS has a problem with philosophers, I suspect some tongue in cheek though the absense of hi falootin makes me wonder. Still just a mistake rather than hypocracy.i
chez

[hmkpoker]

I'd like to point out that any genuinely morally consistent set of beliefs is going to produce a few ethics that, when taken out of context, seem "unethical." For example, it is morally wrong for someone to forcibly prevent another adult from committing suicide under ACist ethics.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
That would be unreasonable but we don't deserve to be born into an affluent society that can voluntarily give us a lot. Footballers get paid a lot today, 50 years ago they got paid very little, today's footballers are no more serving then those 50 years ago they just got lucky. they didn't do anything to bring about the state of affirs where they get paid more.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that make them "undeserving" of that which people have agreed to pay them? It doesn't. It can't. They can't be "undeserving" any more than they are "deserving." The concept, as applied in this fashion (rather than the [imo correct] fashion described by luckyme) is useless.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the problem with the 'deserve idea' the deserve idea? Iow, if you don't believe in a force that goes around handing out dollops of 'deserve credits', where does the idea of an objective 'deserve' grab a toe hold on reality.

[/ QUOTE ]
Like all ideas of this nature you have to ground it somewhere to give the word meaning but that doesn't mean it has no meaning.

I claim it is meaningful to say that someone who works hard as a cleaner all week deserves the money they get paid for it more than a mugger who beats them up and steals their wages. We can work out the details later.


[ QUOTE ]
That you were forunate/lucky doesn't translate into deserving or not deserving, which is a totally different concept ???

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't that DS's point. Those who think they are deserving when they just got lucky are mistaken. He feels nausea at people who try to rationalise that mistake just because it serves their self-interest.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I would only modify your example to be: "You agreed to pay me to cut the lawn. I cut the lawn. I deserve to get paid."

[/ QUOTE ]

That is clearer and I was going to write a version of that and decided to just leave it implied ( I tend to wordiness as it is :-)

thanks, luckyme

[Mickey Brausch]

I'm embarassed to be stating this publicly but I have to say that your posts continue to astound me, and quite pleasantly so.

Of course, even when not from the get-go, then sooner or later, people with exceptional intellect arrive at correct conclusions. I always believed that. But it's nice to see it affirmed, every so often.

Your posts on SMP would be worth the price of a subscription to 2+2, if ever the website goes restricted, even beyond the value of the strictly poker-related texts.

Fantastic work. Keep it up.

Mickey Brausch

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course. You can always come up with arbitrary subjective definitions of who "deserves" what. And that is what they will always be, arbitrary and subjective. Your arbitrary and subjective definition won't be, indeed cannot be, better than anyone else's crazy scheme of who "deserves" what.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with that, just like I'd disagree with the idea that all morality is subjective. Just because it's hard to decide and there is a lot to consider doesn't necessarily mean that the answer has to be subjective and arbitrary.

I'd argue that all things being equal, each person on the planet "deserves" the same opportunities and considerations as everyone else. Obviously we don't all get that - all other things being equal, the hardworking chemist in Burma I'm guessing doesn't have the same opportunity for quality of life as the hardworking chemist in the U.S. A child born in Sudan has a lot greater likelihood of experiencing life's "hardships" then a child born in many other areas of the world.

So, objectively, I think we can very easily and logically agree that, without knowing further information, many people must have a higher or lower standard of living than they "deserve". But it seems to me there are other relevant questions that we can't answer:

Is there life after death/before birth? Do we have a soul? Does life have a specific purpose (and is it the same for everybody)? Have we had/will we have other "lives"? Could there be such a things as karma?

We don't know the answers to these questions (at least, I personally don't assume to know). It seems to me that the "proper" (morally correct) attitude to a large degree ought to involve an ability to empathize with those less fortunate than ourselves, and look at the question (if we're wondering who deserves what) objectively. Now I realize that money isn't everything, but it's certainly something, and so if you ask me if I'm in favor of, for example, progressive taxation, the answer is yes and I believe it's a morally correct answer as well.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course. You can always come up with arbitrary subjective definitions of who "deserves" what. And that is what they will always be, arbitrary and subjective. Your arbitrary and subjective definition won't be, indeed cannot be, better than anyone else's crazy scheme of who "deserves" what.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with that, just like I'd disagree with the idea that all morality is subjective. Just because it's hard to decide and there is a lot to consider doesn't necessarily mean that the answer has to be subjective and arbitrary.
<font color="white"> . </font>
I'd [subjectively assert] that all things being equal, each person on the planet "deserves" the same opportunities and considerations as everyone else . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd [subjectively assert] that all things being equal, each person on the planet "deserves" the same opportunities and considerations as everyone else . . .


[/ QUOTE ]

You think it's subjective to say that, all other things being equal, all individuals "deserve" the same opportunities and considerations in life???