jsh writes
The fall of the coin is the result of "luck and forces beyond that person's control." That demonstrates that, in at least some cases, we consider such outcomes relevant to what someone is entitled to get.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.
I agree that the person one becomes is a result of factors at least some of which, arguably all of which, are outside of one's control. My point is that moral worthiness isn't being predicated of the newborn infant or fertilized ovum but of the adult that it turned into. Whatever the reasons are that I am cruel and dishonest, cruel and dishonest people deserve to have bad things happen to them. That, at least, is a moral intuition that many people find convincing.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.
--
David Friedman
Professor of Law
Santa Clara University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
