David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Law and Philosophy 5 (2):219 - 235 (1986)
In the first section I briefly consider some stituations in which standard desert-claims would be disputed, with the aim of revealing why and by whom they are asserted or denied. Having attained some understanding of the point of different desert-statements, I propose an accound of their content that entails the thesis that statements of positive desert (deserving something desirable) sharply differ in meaning from statements of negative desert (deserving something undesirable), even when expressed in the same form. In the second section I use this ambiguity thesis to argue against an appealing way of defending Hegel's claim that a wrongdoer has a right to be punished and against Kant's defense of the view that there is a duty to punish those who deserve it. I also show how an understanding of negative desert that recognizes the ambiguity thesis enables us to defend the ordinary view of mercy against Kantian criticisms and to reject the popular misconception that mercy is necessarily at odds with justice. In the third section I use the ambiguity thesis to rebut the common claim (found in Mill and Aristotle, among others) that it is unjust for a person to have or be given mone benefits than she deserves. I conclude by showing how an understanding of positive desert that recognizes the ambiguity thesis leads to a rejection both of certain complaints against traditional systems of private property and also of certain moralistic scruples that might give pause to those who acknowledge the moral duty to assist the needy.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Jeffrey Moriarty (2003). Against the Asymmetry of Desert. Noûs 37 (3):518–536.
Jla Garcia (2007). The Doubling Undone? Double Effect in Recent Medical Ethics. Philosophical Papers 36 (2):245-270.
Similar books and articles
J. L. A. Garcia (1989). Deserved Punishment. Law and Philosophy 8 (2):263 - 277.
Jeffrey Moriarty (2005). The Epistemological Argument Against Desert. Utilitas 17 (2):205-221.
Paul H. Robinson, The Role of Moral Philosophers in the Competition Between Deontological and Empirical Desert.
Bradford Skow (2012). A Solution to the Problem of Indeterminate Desert. Mind 121 (481):37-65.
Peter Celello (2009). Against Desert as a Forward-Looking Concept. Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (2):144-159.
Jeffrey Moriarty (2002). Desert and Distributive Justice in a Theory of Justice. Journal of Social Philosophy 33 (1):131–143.
Gillian Brock (1999). Just Deserts and Needs. Southern Journal of Philosophy 37 (2):165-188.
Kristján Kristjánsson (2005). A Utilitarian Justification of Desert in Distributive Justice. Journal of Moral Philosophy 2 (2):147-170.
Shelly Kagan (2012). The Geometry of Desert. Oxford University Press.
Stephen Kershnar (2008). Desert Tracks Character Alone. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (1):71-88.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads33 ( #117,842 of 1,792,039 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #344,937 of 1,792,039 )
How can I increase my downloads?