Comments on: Brighouse on Desert http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/08/20/brighouse-on-desert/ The Sweet Release of Reason Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:11:50 +0000 hourly 1 By: Timothy Waligore http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/08/20/brighouse-on-desert/#comment-1070 Timothy Waligore Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:44:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=426#comment-1070 Also, what determines which particular cultivated skills and talents are most rewarded? Is it marketplace laws of supply and demand? If desert is not merely the cultivation of talents, but the cultivation of talents that are favored by the market, AND the market is what determines what talents you will be rewarded for cultivating, THEN it becomes a little tautological to say that the market best tracks desert, no? Also, what determines which particular cultivated skills and talents are most rewarded? Is it marketplace laws of supply and demand?
If desert is not merely the cultivation of talents, but the cultivation of talents that are favored by the market, AND the market is what determines what talents you will be rewarded for cultivating, THEN it becomes a little tautological to say that the market best tracks desert, no?

]]> By: Timothy Waligore http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/08/20/brighouse-on-desert/#comment-1069 Timothy Waligore Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:32:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=426#comment-1069 By the way, no one 'in their right mind' thinks that just because you cultivate an ability means you deserve a reward, or a large reward. Spending my life perfecting my kazoo playing ability does not mean I deserve a larger income than (or really any income) someone who learned how to design decent webpages. I really doubt Will believes that mere cultivation of ability, regardless of the ability, leads to desert. Or he may say you deserve your kazoo playing ability, but it is desert of the cultivated ability only in some cases, not desert of reward; your duration of cultivation is not (always) the determining factor in what reward you will get. Someone who cultivated their talent less and worked less hard than another person could easily be rewarded more. Furthermore, if we want to say that you deserve the total extent of your cultivated talent, and that you deserve what rewards you are promised in a particular institutional framework for cultivating that talent, it does not follow that you deserve to be a particular institutional context that rewards your particular talents. By the way, no one ‘in their right mind’ thinks that just because you cultivate an ability means you deserve a reward, or a large reward. Spending my life perfecting my kazoo playing ability does not mean I deserve a larger income than (or really any income) someone who learned how to design decent webpages. I really doubt Will believes that mere cultivation of ability, regardless of the ability, leads to desert. Or he may say you deserve your kazoo playing ability, but it is desert of the cultivated ability only in some cases, not desert of reward; your duration of cultivation is not (always) the determining factor in what reward you will get. Someone who cultivated their talent less and worked less hard than another person could easily be rewarded more.

Furthermore, if we want to say that you deserve the total extent of your cultivated talent, and that you deserve what rewards you are promised in a particular institutional framework for cultivating that talent, it does not follow that you deserve to be a particular institutional context that rewards your particular talents.

]]> By: Timothy Waligore http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/08/20/brighouse-on-desert/#comment-1068 Timothy Waligore Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:31:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=426#comment-1068 Or if [2] is right, imagine this scenario. B has a high innate talent level in some area, but does no cultivation at all. A has a low or medium innate talent but has been cultivating this talent. A invites B to compete (or somehow B ends up competing with A, perhaps B never having participated in such a competition before), and B ends up winning because of a high innate talent. Did B deserve to win? If we say B did not deserve to win, why is this? Because he did no cultivation? It seems likely that despite him having no cultivation, we would pronounce him the winner, and so we are left with the case of the underserving winner by the rules of the game. That hardly seems intuitively obvious. (though maybe this would be a rare case and hence not much of a worry?) If we say B did deserve to win, notice it is not because B has worked to hard to realize his ability and B deserves his ability. In this case, he did no cultivation at all! But say that B had actually put in some minimal cultivation in? Then we are not defending desert on the basis of hard work, but as the result of ANY cultivation, however small, plus native assets. But you don't have to be crazy to see that is a little less intuive than Will's formulation of: "if I worked hard to realize my ability, then I deserve the ability that I've earned through my dedication and hard work." Again, do you deserve [1] just the portion of talent you have cultivated through hard work or [2] the entirely of the ability (innate talent + effort). Or if [2] is right, imagine this scenario. B has a high innate talent level in some area, but does no cultivation at all. A has a low or medium innate talent but has been cultivating this talent. A invites B to compete (or somehow B ends up competing with A, perhaps B never having participated in such a competition before), and B ends up winning because of a high innate talent. Did B deserve to win?

If we say B did not deserve to win, why is this? Because he did no cultivation? It seems likely that despite him having no cultivation, we would pronounce him the winner, and so we are left with the case of the underserving winner by the rules of the game. That hardly seems intuitively obvious. (though maybe this would be a rare case and hence not much of a worry?)

If we say B did deserve to win, notice it is not because B has worked to hard to realize his ability and B deserves his ability. In this case, he did no cultivation at all!

But say that B had actually put in some minimal cultivation in? Then we are not defending desert on the basis of hard work, but as the result of ANY cultivation, however small, plus native assets.

But you don’t have to be crazy to see that is a little less intuive than Will’s formulation of: “if I worked hard to realize my ability, then I deserve the ability that I’ve earned through my dedication and hard work.”

Again, do you deserve [1] just the portion of talent you have cultivated through hard work or [2] the entirely of the ability (innate talent + effort).

]]> By: Timothy Waligore http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/08/20/brighouse-on-desert/#comment-1067 Timothy Waligore Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:03:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=426#comment-1067 "If Harry doesn't believe that people deserve their cultivated talents, then I wonder why not. It's obvious to me, and I think most people, that people do deserve their cultivated talents." 1. There is an ambiguity here in the phrase "people deserve their cultivated talents". Do you mean their cultivated talents, minus their innate ability? Or if they cultivate a talent at all, they then deserve the entire result? Say A starts with more innate violin-playing ability than B. Both practice the violin, but A works harder to cultivate her abilities. In the end, they both play the violin equally well. Do you think [1] A is more deserving than B because more of her ability is due to cultivation, or [2] A and B are they equally deserving because they now have the same ability after cultivation. [1] is clearly not tracked by a free market that does not do at least some rough work in equalizing starting points. [2] does not seem intuitively obvious, or if it is, it is not clear why desert is so important morally and must be a part of a theory of justice. “If Harry doesn’t believe that people deserve their cultivated talents, then I wonder why not. It’s obvious to me, and I think most people, that people do deserve their cultivated talents.”

1. There is an ambiguity here in the phrase “people deserve their cultivated talents”. Do you mean their cultivated talents, minus their innate ability? Or if they cultivate a talent at all, they then deserve the entire result?
Say A starts with more innate violin-playing ability than B. Both practice the violin, but A works harder to cultivate her abilities. In the end, they both play the violin equally well. Do you think [1] A is more deserving than B because more of her ability is due to cultivation, or [2] A and B are they equally deserving because they now have the same ability after cultivation.
[1] is clearly not tracked by a free market that does not do at least some rough work in equalizing starting points. [2] does not seem intuitively obvious, or if it is, it is not clear why desert is so important morally and must be a part of a theory of justice.

]]> By: Timothy Waligore http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/08/20/brighouse-on-desert/#comment-1066 Timothy Waligore Sat, 28 Aug 2004 18:53:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=426#comment-1066 Will- there is no way you can say that Phelps deserved to win the Gold in all possible worlds (or to keep it simple, this world, and the nearest possible world where the super-swimmer competed and beat him). The point is that Phelps' claim of desert *in this world* is not strong enough for it to necessarily survive in some *nearest possible world*. And let's say we are talking about shifts in possible worlds that can occur through, say, government or institutional action and changes in the basic structure. Desert in one context does not prevent us from evaluating the justness of another context. The same is true of evaluating basic structures. That is, unless you think the basic structure of a society cannot be just unless it incorporated a (strong? pre-institutional? moral?) notion of desert. Will- there is no way you can say that Phelps deserved to win the Gold in all possible worlds (or to keep it simple, this world, and the nearest possible world where the super-swimmer competed and beat him). The point is that Phelps’ claim of desert *in this world* is not strong enough for it to necessarily survive in some *nearest possible world*. And let’s say we are talking about shifts in possible worlds that can occur through, say, government or institutional action and changes in the basic structure. Desert in one context does not prevent us from evaluating the justness of another context. The same is true of evaluating basic structures. That is, unless you think the basic structure of a society cannot be just unless it incorporated a (strong? pre-institutional? moral?) notion of desert.

]]> By: Tim Waligore http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/08/20/brighouse-on-desert/#comment-1065 Tim Waligore Sat, 28 Aug 2004 18:43:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=426#comment-1065 And Will- It seems a little strange to say "Isn't this obvious?" and then show the power of your common-sense intuition by using phrases like "nearest possible world." Counterfactuals are very counter-intuitive. However well you explain them, I don't think all that much is obvious in that realm. And Will- It seems a little strange to say “Isn’t this obvious?” and then show the power of your common-sense intuition by using phrases like “nearest possible world.” Counterfactuals are very counter-intuitive. However well you explain them, I don’t think all that much is obvious in that realm.

]]> By: Tim Waligore http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/08/20/brighouse-on-desert/#comment-1064 Tim Waligore Sat, 28 Aug 2004 18:37:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=426#comment-1064 Will- You can say that Steffi Graff or Michael Phelps 'deserve' all their winnings and rewards because they won them in actual institutional contexts. But can they (or could they) legitimately say: hey, you can't change the institutional context (by bringing Seles back, or by not having a certain event being a gold medal competition at the Olympics) because I won (or would have won or will win) these rewards in this other institutional context? Even if we says Phelps deserves his gold medal for the 100m (and it is crazy thinking to think otherwise), is it crazy to say there should not be a 100m Olympic event? Is it crazy to say claims of desert should not stop such a shift in context? I take you to be saying that if we were to evaluate what is the best institutional context, desert has to be a factor (or the factor) in making a choice between institutional schemes. Simply because a person would deserve something in one institutional scheme is not a legitimate reason for why that insitutitional scheme should exist. Will-

You can say that Steffi Graff or Michael Phelps ‘deserve’ all their winnings and rewards because they won them in actual institutional contexts. But can they (or could they) legitimately say: hey, you can’t change the institutional context (by bringing Seles back, or by not having a certain event being a gold medal competition at the Olympics) because I won (or would have won or will win) these rewards in this other institutional context?

Even if we says Phelps deserves his gold medal for the 100m (and it is crazy thinking to think otherwise), is it crazy to say there should not be a 100m Olympic event? Is it crazy to say claims of desert should not stop such a shift in context?

I take you to be saying that if we were to evaluate what is the best institutional context, desert has to be a factor (or the factor) in making a choice between institutional schemes.
Simply because a person would deserve something in one institutional scheme is not a legitimate reason for why that insitutitional scheme should exist.

]]> By: James Joyner http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/08/20/brighouse-on-desert/#comment-1063 James Joyner Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:52:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=426#comment-1063 Unless you go down the Matthew Yglesias road and argue that self-discipline, energy, and those things which compel some talented people to work hard are similarly inate. There is something to that, of course. Its reductio is more absurd than whatever wisdom it imparts, however. Unless you go down the Matthew Yglesias road and argue that self-discipline, energy, and those things which compel some talented people to work hard are similarly inate. There is something to that, of course. Its reductio is more absurd than whatever wisdom it imparts, however.

]]> By: James Joyner http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/08/20/brighouse-on-desert/#comment-1054 James Joyner Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=426#comment-1054 Unless you go down the Matthew Yglesias road and argue that self-discipline, energy, and those things which compel some talented people to work hard are similarly inate. There is something to that, of course. Its reductio is more absurd than whatever wisdom it imparts, however. Unless you go down the Matthew Yglesias road and argue that self-discipline, energy, and those things which compel some talented people to work hard are similarly inate. There is something to that, of course. Its reductio is more absurd than whatever wisdom it imparts, however.

]]> By: Tim Waligore http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/08/20/brighouse-on-desert/#comment-1055 Tim Waligore Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=426#comment-1055 Will- You can say that Steffi Graff or Michael Phelps 'deserve' all their winnings and rewards because they won them in actual institutional contexts. But can they (or could they) legitimately say: hey, you can't change the institutional context (by bringing Seles back, or by not having a certain event being a gold medal competition at the Olympics) because I won (or would have won or will win) these rewards in this other institutional context? Even if we says Phelps deserves his gold medal for the 100m (and it is crazy thinking to think otherwise), is it crazy to say there should not be a 100m Olympic event? Is it crazy to say claims of desert should not stop such a shift in context? I take you to be saying that if we were to evaluate what is the best institutional context, desert has to be a factor (or the factor) in making a choice between institutional schemes. Simply because a person would deserve something in one institutional scheme is not a legitimate reason for why that insitutitional scheme should exist. Will-

You can say that Steffi Graff or Michael Phelps ‘deserve’ all their winnings and rewards because they won them in actual institutional contexts. But can they (or could they) legitimately say: hey, you can’t change the institutional context (by bringing Seles back, or by not having a certain event being a gold medal competition at the Olympics) because I won (or would have won or will win) these rewards in this other institutional context?

Even if we says Phelps deserves his gold medal for the 100m (and it is crazy thinking to think otherwise), is it crazy to say there should not be a 100m Olympic event? Is it crazy to say claims of desert should not stop such a shift in context?

I take you to be saying that if we were to evaluate what is the best institutional context, desert has to be a factor (or the factor) in making a choice between institutional schemes.
Simply because a person would deserve something in one institutional scheme is not a legitimate reason for why that insitutitional scheme should exist.

]]>