--- david friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"One strong moral intuition, although not the only
one, is that you deserve what you create--that people
who make a large contribution to the society deserve a
large reward. How large a contribution you make
depends on a variety of factors, none of which the
hypothetical disembodied identity that represents you
stripped of all genetic and environmental
characteristics "deserves" to have, some of which are
characteristics of that identity with genetics added,
some of that with genetics and environment added, and
some pure luck.
...
If you find this way of thinking of it entirely
implausible, consider Nozick's example of two men,
each of whom is entitled to is current assets by
whatever the morally correct rule may be, who bet a
dollar on the flip of a coin. Nobody will say that one
of them deserved to win the bet. Yet most of us would
say that the one who wins the bet is entitled to have
the dollar. And if the previous distribution was just,
and just distributions cannot depend on morally
irrelevant criteria such as luck, that means that we
have just approved a move away from a just
distribution."

In the first quoted paragraph, you say that at least
some of what determines how well a person can
contribute is associated with luck and forces beyond
that person's control.  In the second, you imply that
these outcomes of chance are analogous to a small bet
between two consenting adults.  I don't see the
analogy.  

To say that the person one becomes determines what
this person deserves is reasonable, but not as an
absolute.  The person one becomes is a product of
myriad factors, many of which are outside said
person's control.  Suppose that a person is born into
a family of Philistines--truly ignorant buffons and
semi-literate at best.  Odds are that this person will
not enjoy the same fruits as a more-or-less identical
person born into a family of doctors, judges, and
industrialists.  To say that the first person deserves
less and the latter more smacks of punishing a child
for the crimes of a parent.  It certainly doesn't
sound like like consenting adults making a small bet
on the flip of a coin.

-jsh


=====
"...for no one admits that he incurs an obligation to another merely because that 
other has done him no wrong."
-Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Discourse 16.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Reply via email to