4 ms·
"does he not deserve a reward regardless of what enabled him to do so" No. Why would that be the case? In your moral framework that equates moral desert with t
by mkingston 11y ago
"does he not deserve a reward regardless of what enabled him to do so"
No. Why would that be the case? In your moral framework that equates moral desert with technological progression, sure. But not in mine, where technological progression is antithetical to social progression.
Ok, that was pretty facetious (especially the last sentence); there's utility in rewarding progress, but as another commenter mentioned, fairness is entirely subjective.
- austerity 11y agoI was merely using an example that seemed relevant to this community. The point is someone has decided to use his time to the benefit of others. It seems to me that the fair reward in this case should be proportional to the benefit produced as perceived by the person/people benefiting and not depend in any way on what it took the "provider" to produce. If you argue that fairness is subjective and utility is king you've already rejected the entire argument about genetic advantage. I would point out though that to define utility you'd still need a definition of what's "good" and with it, very likely, what's "fair" and we are back to square one.
- linhchi 11y agoif we insist on everybody getting the same share, no matter what, then the smart one doesnt have incentive to make progress and the lazy one simply stops trying. that'd be disaster (isnt that communism?) the good gene is like a natural lottery. do you insist your neighbor to share his lottery money with you because he does nothing to get that money? because he's lucky, he may share with you 10%, but never share 50-50
- tankenmate 11y agoActually you'll find there are cultures around the globe where you are expected to share more than 50% if you receive a windfall... The less than 50% thing is very much a western world phenomenon; and a US one in particular.
- linhchi 11y agoyeah, but in tribes or backward society, with agriculture or hunter-gatherer .. it's kinda hard to compare between these two kinds of society, people deal with very different things everyday
- tankenmate 11y agoYou'll find that gift cultures exist today that have long since stopped being agrarian; the Philippines and Thailand come to mind. In the big cities the gift culture is still alive and well. It is quite a different culture to the predominately protestant individualistic society that is America though.[0] [0] http://www.researchgate.net/publication/31914331_J._Henrich__R._Boyd__S._Bowles__C._Camerer__E._Fehr__H._Gintis_%28eds.%29_Foundations_of_Human_Sociality_Economic_Experiment http://www.researchgate.net/publication/31914331_J._Henrich_...