"Both
merit, which emphasizes excellence and contribution, and desert, which
emphasizes intention and consciencetious effort" are included in his
debate. (Pojman, 1999, p. 88) According to Pojman, "desert,
then, is closely connected to effort and intention, whereas merit signifies
positive qualities that call forth positive response, including qualities that
we do not deserve." (Pojman, 1999, p. 87) As a definition to what merit and desert are,
this a a perfect definition. However,
then stating that one should be rewarded based on desert means that those
rewards should place a greater emphasis on intention. One problem we run into with desert is
understanding and then rewarding a person based on their intentions. As the saying goes, "the road to hell is
paved with good intentions". It is
impossible to know what a person's intentions really are. In addition, this would also infer that if an
individual caused harm or pain to another, but did so unintentionally, or
better still with good intentions, they should not suffer the same consequences
as someone who commited the same act with malice. Either way, the results of that act would be
the same.
Pojman
states, "a notion of a moral order (natural law) wherin good and evil
exist, so that evil deeds should be followed with evil results to the evildoer
and good deeds with good results to the virtuous person" underlies these
principles. (Pojman, 1999, p. 97)
Although there is do dispute for the exsistence of good and evil, it is
a relative term. Our beliefs in right
and wrong are based primarily on our societal cultures. "Societal culture involves beliefs and
values about what is desierable and undesireable in a community of people, and
a set of formal and informal practices to support the values." (Kinicki, 2009, p. 63) Therefore, what is considered good or proper
may not appear so in another culture.
This would lead to great inconsistency in trying to reward or punish
others.
Pojman
is searching for equality and justice. However pleasant this may sound, true
equality does not exsist. To be truly
equal, "everyone must be treated alike, whatever their status or strength. But if…you attempt to treat everyone equally
and fairly, you will confront the problem that some people do certain things
better than others. Treating everyone
equally means ignoring their differences, elevating the less skillful and
suppressing those who excel." (Greene, 2000 p. xviii) In fact, you will
soon find that "many of those who behave this way are actually deploying
another power strategy, redistributing people's rewards in a way that they
determine." (Greene, 2000 p. xviii)
This
brings us to one of the biggest problems with Pojman's well orchestrated
theory. Who determines what is right and
wrong, and as a result the reward or punishment they should receive? Does he assume we will have altruistic
leaders to light the way or will other completely unselfish members of society
take on the role of judges on our behalf?
The chances of either are not very likely. With no great leader or great dispearsment of
reward or punishment available on earth, people will naturally revert back to
their natural state. As such, there
really is no one great consistent judgement available to carry out so great a
task.
Many
may argue that we do in fact have such a leader in the form of God. This may be true. However for the most part, those rewards must
come after we have already left this mortal state. If we are to wait for those rewards and
punishments alone, there would be very little to either encourage or discourage
the moral acts of those still here.
In
addition, we face the issue of change.
Societies, cultures, governments and people are constantly
evolving. As Han-Fei-Tzu, a chinease
philosopher from the third century B.C. points out, "the sage neither
seeks to follow the ways of the ancients
nor establishes any fixed standard for all times but examines the things of his
age and then prepares to deal with them.
There was in Sung a man, who tilled a field in which there stood the
trunk of a tree. Once a hare, while
running fast, rushed against the trunk, broke its neck, and died. There upon the man cast his plow aside and
watched that tree, hoping that he would get another hare. Yet he never caught another hare and was
himself ridiculed by the people of Sung.
Now supposing somebody wanted to govern the people of the present age
with the policies of the early kings, he would be doing exactly the same thing
as that man who watched the tree."
(Greene, 2000 p. 423)
We
cannot effectively set forth grounds to reward and punish others based on merit
and desert as Pojman sets forth. In
order to do so we would need a moral code set in stone, that everyone was willing to abide by, and
that altruistic, impartial leaders could inforce. However, this is just not practical. Although Pojman's argument sounds very attractive,
his lack of realism leaves us with very little usefulness from his long
dissertation. In short, we are right
back where we stated.
Greene, R. (2000). The 48 Laws of Power. New York:
Penguin Books, Ltd.
Kinicki, A. (2009). Organizational Behavior, Key Concept
Skills and Best Practices. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pojman, L. (1999). Merit: Why Do We Value It? Journal of
Social Philosophy , 30 (No. 1), 83-102.
No comments:
Post a Comment