Oh geez, Matt might hate me for this...

I was away but now I'm back. It's probably too late but I want to take up again what I started about the Mercedes S600. Not only do I want to take it up again but I need to finish it. I need to be as succinct and to go as fast as possible to accomplish this in this evening...

Recall that Joe is 75 years old retired and can't work. The question is whether he deserves a Mercedes S600.

While I was away the question was raised about why anyone would want such a vehicle. It's a good question but peripheral to the point I'll be making. Suffice it to say that for some individuals interest in automobiles can be characterized as artistic in origin. Appreciation of fine machines is not necesarily unwholesome and it can be very inspiring. It can be a good thing. Also the Mercedes is just a symbol. In its place feel free to substitute any other desirable object or situation.

And while I was away Shakra made the point that she couldn't say for sure whether Joe deserves the Mercedes or not because we don't know the exact context. For example, if the Mercedes were built by individuals who were not fairly compensated then it would not be right to give joe the Mercedes.

This is an excellent point. It gets back to the question of when someone does and when someone does not deserve something. That is the whole question. That is the essential issue I want to address.

Well to reassure Shakra let's suppose that in the society where Joe lives everyone is fairly compensated for their work not only in building Mercedes but also in every other respect. And let's suppose also that in this society everybody at age 75 receives a Mercedes S600 constructed by well paid "fair trade" workers if they do not or have not already owned one. And recall that there are no other pressing needs in this society.

So does Joe and every other 75 year old worker in this society deserve a Mercedes S600? The reasonable answer I maintain, as KBlaze put it, is "Sure. Why not?"

Now let's take things a step further in the direction I (emphasis on the "I") want to go.

Let's take the case of Bill. Bill lives in the same society as Joe. Bill is only 35 years old. He works 8 hours a day just like Joe did. And the fact is that Bill works as hard as he reasonably can and contributes as much as he reasonably can and the proven statistical chances are virtually zero that Bill -- like most of us -- will ever make any revolutionary contributions to society. Chances are he will never contribute any more to society than Joe did, or any more than any average person does.

So does Bill deserve a Mercedes S600? At age 35?

Well, why not?

And shouldn't Joe have gotten his Mercedes at age 35? Well why not that too.

Now suppose there is some element in this hypothetical societ that arises which is more pressing than possession of a Mercedes S600. Then I think that most would agree that this need should be taken care of before Joe or Bill gets their Mercedes.

But then that raises another question. Why should anyone in the current society get a Mercedes when there are more pressing needs? More pressing needs by far.

To end this in a reasonable amount of time here's the overall main point. Somewhere above Shakra made the assertion that we all have equal opportunities and that our accomplishments are matters only of choice. Both these ideas are utterly false. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We are all different people with nonidentical extrinsic and intrinsic resources. We all operate on the basis of the information our minds are able to process in the particular circumstances of our individual environments. In a world of cause and effect, that is, we all do the best we can under the circumstances as we assimilate them.

We all do the best we can. So we all deserve the very best.

Everyone deserves a Mercedes S600. There's no good reason why one person should have one and another not.

In other words merit should be nondiscriminatory.

And if there are more pressing needs in society than S600s -- as indeed there are -- then those needs should be taken care of before anyone gets one.

The preceding is abbreviated and does not address the topic in its full depth but highlights most of the essential.

(I didn't get into this but what in fact is the case is that "merit" turns out to be nothing more than what a person DESIRES it to be. Merit is nothing more ultimately than an emotional response to a situation. Merit is a myth. A person "deserves" something ultimately only because that's what you or someone else WANTS. Well to be fair and moral the only thing that anyone should want is for all people to receive the very best possible within practical and egalitarian limitations.)

 

And the first people to get mercedes' should be people who work in the mercedes factory. And after that the people who roll up in lorries (that's trucks to you americans) to collect them should decide what to do with them.

 

SDS wrote:

"Somewhere above Shakra made the assertion that we all have equal opportunities and that our accomplishments are matters only of choice."

No I didn't "we all have" implies such a situation exists, when it clearly does not.

"Both these ideas are utterly false. Nothing could be further from the truth."

In reality yes but I was of course talking about an "ideal world", a world which does not exist.

"We all do the best we can."

Sadly this is not true

"merit should be nondiscriminatory"

Not sure what you mean by this. The whole concept of merit is that it is discriminatory. It makes the distinction between one who perfoms well and is deserving and one who does not and thus is not deserving.

 

But if someone performs well, doesn't that imply that they don't need as much help as the one that doesn't perform so well?
Freedom of opportunity is key. It starts from an early age when we're forced to go to school at the same time with people the same age (never mind ability) and study the same things (again, never mind ability in a particular subject). It's all about getting people to live inside the box, plod along and accept what's given to you when it's given to you. If in a class of thirty, two can read, should they hang around watching others learn their abc while they could be doing something challenging? Conversely, if there are two who can't read in a class of thirty, should they be made to stare in uncomprehending silence while the class reads?

Freedom. Interest-->Study, as opposed to Study-->Interest, or, just as common Study-->A well paid job that you spend the rest of your life (and money) trying to escape from. I swear, if people could do what they want, when they wanted... ohh, I'm flogging a dead horse

So what's your solution SDS? How do we get there?

 

true I agree

 

Random Any wrote:

"But if someone performs well, doesn't that imply that they don't need as much help as the one that doesn't perform so well?"

Yes, but help is not the same as merit. Thus performing well has nothing to do with getting more help just that you should get more reward.

"Freedom of opportunity is key."

Freedom of opportunity is indeed the key and since I have been harping on about equal life chances for all, I agree with you.

"It starts from an early age when we're forced to go to school at the same time with people the same age (never mind ability) and study the same things (again, never mind ability in a particular subject). It's all about getting people to live inside the box, plod along and accept what's given to you when it's given to you."

Very true but formal education is part of the process of secondary socialisation whereby we are taught how to function as citizens of the society in which we live. We are taught in ways that will allow us to contribute to that society. This has always been the main focus of formal education. As such the emphasis is often on the basics of communication, such as reading, writing and speaking as well as introducing logical thought processing and problem solving skills via mathematics. Both are necessary in order to allow a child to go on and learn a wider range of subjects. It would be very difficult for any individual to enter into society not being able to read or write, or have any form of logical thinking, to advance themselves in any field of study or indeed any career.

Additionally most schools today are required to teach a broad range of subjects in order to allow the child to be better placed to chose those areas in which they want to study further. Accademically speaking there is nothing to stop a child from going on to a University to study anything they want to. Finacially, this is another matter.

This is why we are all taught the same things, because these are necessary things to enable further development.

Through formal education we are also taught obedience, punctuality and attendance (responsibility and reliability) as well as behavioural and social skills. This would be less effective if we were allowed to attend school at whatever time we chose. There would be less individuals for each child to interact with and the child would not be learning to integrate into their lives a pattern of working behaviour during the hours of 9am to 5pm from Monday to Friday, necessary for later life.

Also having children in school during a certain time enables their parents to work, and thus contribute to society.

This is part of the reason we all attend school at the same time.

"If in a class of thirty, two can read, should they hang around watching others learn their abc while they could be doing something challenging? Conversely, if there are two who can't read in a class of thirty, should they be made to stare in uncomprehending silence while the class reads?"

I think it is generally accepted by the majority of people that it is better to individually tailor a childs education to their own personal needs and abilities. However it would take a lot more time, effort and resources in order to do so. Where education is free, this requires a lot more financial input from every individual from that society. Unfortunately most people are unwilling to increase the amount of taxes they pay, even while they recognise it would be necessary to do so in order that the educational needs of every child was fundamentaly provided for.

Furthermore there are other reasons why one child might do better in reading or any other subject, than another, reasons that are outwith the control of the school they attend. The childs family life alone being a major influence on how well they might perform in education.

Additionally, it is recognised that where parents take a direct interest in their childs education, that child is likely to progress faster than children whose parents take little or no interest. Expectation alone being conducive to a childs deveopment.

If all children had the same opportunity to access libraries, or extra tuition, then there would be nothing to stop a child who cannot read so well from getting the extra help they needed, or a child who can read very well from gaining more advanced materials from which to read.

It is also believed that there is very little diferentiation in levels of intelligence between individuals. If in a class of 30, 2 cannot read, is this because these 2 are genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than the other 28 or is it a case of nurture, of how much attention is given to their studies, either by their teacher or their parents? Are we born with innate talents and abilities, or do we gain them at levels directly related to the amount of stimuli we receive in early childhood? I personally belive it is the latter.

This is part of why we all attend school at the same age, because in general we all develop at roughly the same age. There will always be exceptions however.

Of course you could say that this doesn't matter, that if a child is leaning towards a certain talent, such as art, music or mathematics, they should be encouraged to go with their own flow as it were, and see where it takes them. I am sure everyone would agree with you, so long as such a child was still learning how to communicate effectively.

I guess what I am trying to say is, if you took a new born child and stuck it in a room, it's not going to teach itself what it wants to do. It doesn't know what it wants to do and never will unless it is first taught what is out there for it to do.

"Freedom. Interest-->Study, as opposed to Study-->Interest, or, just as common Study-->A well paid job that you spend the rest of your life (and money) trying to escape from."

Very true. However no one is forced to study simply to get a well paid job. This is something most people chose to do, either because they actually want to, feel they should, or because their life circumstances dictates they must (they have a family to support - again this is a choice - they chose to have a family). If only we had free healthcare, education, shelter, food, water etc etc we might find ourselves doing only those things which interest us.

Still I embrace the fact that there are somethings in life, some necessary evils, that I may not want or like doing. It makes those things that I do want or like doing all the more sweeter.

Also since I actually agree with most of what you are saying, I am now just playing devils advocate and stating any counter-argument that comes to mind

In short you are taught how to be a good contributer to the society in which you live. You are taught that you are expected to perform a social role and that you are expected to spend 1/3 of your day doing so. If you were not taught these things, it is likely that the society in which you live would not function as effectively as it does.

You are not however taught what that social role should be, this is down to your own personal choice, which granted, may be strongly influenced by your teachers, your parents, your life circumstances and your peers.

Meh... birds eye potato waaaaaffffles...

 

They're waffly versatile...mmmmm.

I don't get why it would cost more to put pupils of like ability in the same class. That would have the added bonus that, if you worked well in school and got to a stage, in any subject, where you were capable of making a living you would be able to leave education, or go part time, and work for money, then maybe come back later, still for free even if you were over 18, and learn some more. The first things a lot of kids could do would be teaching cos 'studies have shown' that peer group teachiong is often more effective than some old bloke or bird doing it. The right to actually do something, pay your way in the adult world, would be quite an incentive to work hard at school, especially if you weren't allowed to leave until you could do something.

Probably some teachers would prefer to work later on in the day so that would be ok.

And I don't see why a pupil can't choose a route through school the way a student chooses a route through a modular degree course. Obviously a basic level of maths, the ability to read and write would have to be prerequisites for a lot of subjects.

And I hate the whole work ethic as it stands in the modern world. Having to plead your case about why you should be allowed to, essentially, help someone out.

As for food being free, I personally really can't understand why it's not. At the moment tax-payers are paying farmers not to produce food. In the vast majority of cases it's not just paying them enough to survive, it's paying them so they can live in absolute luxury because it's based on the area of land they own which isn't producing food. So it's the farmers with loads of land who benefit. If food were free (ie if farmers were paid to produce food), the cost to the tax-payer would be about the same as it is, except food would be free. I don't understand what the problem with that would be but I'm sure there must be one.

Accomodation? It's a bit fucked up that, if you own two houses (and some people own a lot more than that) you don't have to work for the rest of your life, whilst if you don't own any you have to pay more per month than if you're buying your own place. The less you have, the more the odds are against you - no wonder the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.

I gotta go.

 

Shakra I was away and I don't know if you're still out there or whether this thread is going anywhere but here goes nevertheless.

First of all it's good if you recognize and agree that we do not have equal opportunities and that our accomplishments are not just matters of choice.

Second you are correct in registering disagreement with my statement "We all do the best we can" as it stands. The problem here is that I failed to make a distinction between past and future actions.

Thus with respect to future actions I agree that there exists the potential for a person to do better than one has done in the past.

I failed to specify that my statement "We all do the best we can" relates only to past actions. (All materially real actions are inevitably past actions.) Here however I maintain my assertion that every action that any person ever performed in the past was the best that could be done under the circumstances. Why do I make this assertion? Because only one thing really happened. Only one thing was really possible. All other "possibilities" that were visualized prior to the action in question actuallly taken turned out to be impossibilities. The empirical proof of this fact is that all the other "possibilities" did not happen. The circumstances necessary for them to occur were not in place. These possibilities were not materially realized.

Therefore every action that anyone ever took in the past was the best possible action -- the only possible action -- that could have taken place under the actually existing circumstances.

Nothing else was really possible in the past other than what actually did happen. Any other eventualities were and are sheer speculation. It is true one can visualize something different having happend in the past. But that something can be visualized obviouslly does not mean that it could have been or even that it ever will be reality. One can visualize endless things that never were and will in our lifetimes never be.

There exists no material evidence that anything that really took place in the past could be other than it really was. None whatsoever.

Merit cannot be based on future actions. It has to be based on past actions.

Every action that anyone ever took in the past was the only really possible and therefore the best possible action that could have taken place under the actually existing circumstances. THEREFORE EVERYONE DESERVES THE VERY BEST. BECAUSE EVERYONE ONE DID THE BEST POSSIBLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Therefore merit should be NONDISCRIMINATORY.

TRUE MERIT IS NONDISCRIMINATORY.

EVERYONE deserves NOTHING LESS than THE VERY BEST.

Does this have profound implications Shakra? You better believe it. (And it actually goes somewhat beyond what I'm saying but this is the critical foundation.)

 

Mate, I mean this in the friendliest possible way but... that was total bullshit:&

So if someone commits some vicious crime, it was the only possible thing they could do so they can't be punished?

I agree that people deserve the best their world and technology can supply them, but that argument was pure philosophy. Do you study philosophy by any chance?

 

Random Andy I'll take you at your word that you're speaking in your friendliest manner and please take me at my word that I'm responding in my friendliest manner.

As an expression of my sincerity let me put myself at prejudicial risk by confirming that I studied philosophy in college. But before you say "Aha gotcha" please read further. Also let me say that what I am going to write in the folllowing is not something I learned in philosophy classes. But you could say it the result of a careful analytical approach in whose development philosophy played a role.

It is an absolutely positively cold hard fact for which there exists all material evidence and against which there exists no material evidence that each and every event that actually did take place in the past could not have been any different than it really was. Any other view represents pure philosophical speculation! Random Andy I trust the irony of this is not lost on you.

Therefore the actions we all took in the past are the only actions, as proven by the cold hard material facts, that actually and materially could have taken place.

Random Andy the reason you reject this or don't like this is not because it is wrong. The reason you don't accept it (if you don't accept it) is because you want to punish criminals.

So the real question, the real problem, is: What do criminals merit?

In fact, let us broaden the question and ask: What does anyone merit?

Yes: Given the cold hard fact that we all did the only thing we could under the circumstances what does anyone deserve or merit?

What is it that really determines merit?

Random Andy I'm going to stop here and ask whether you're with me so far. Just tell me you're with me so far and I'll continue. What I am doing is leading up to something very important about merit. it will require your thoughtfulness patience and careful discrimination. But the result will be well worth the effort. It will give you the power of being in a winning position.

 

I'm for the Galactic Confederation.
Free health care of a fair and equal standing for all.
Free education of a fair and equal standard for all
Free food of a fair and equal standard
Mindless robots doing all the shit boring work
Then I can go paint a painting...

 

You can paint here:


http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106687

and here,

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95138&page=3

oh, and a little over here, too,

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104693&page=3&pp=10

oops, that's this thread.
Now you're stuck in the neverending spiral.
Have fun!

 

I can see where you're coming from SDS, but I don't agree with you. Just because something did happen, doesn't mean it's the only thing that could have happened. If you went back in time and it all happened again, maybe it would happen differently. It's not just that I want criminals to be punished, I think everyone should take responsability for their past, be it good or bad. There's no point saying, "oh it couldn't have happened any other way" when you've just insulted someone for no reason, or written a great poem, you have to feel shame and pride respectively, with a view to changing or continuing in the future. I'm sure that's beside the point though so I'll just say "I get you" and let you get on with the rest of what you were going to say.

I get you.

 

I like.

 

Random Andy -

Sorry for the delay getting back to you.

"If you went back in time and it all happened again maybe it would happen differently." Yes you're on to something here in that IF we could go back in time and COULD do things again but in a different way then this would constitute scientific material evidence that things can really be different than they are or were. But we don't currently have such capabilities. Until the day arrives that we can go back in time and change things there exists no material evidence whatsoever that anything could be different than it actually was. Then of course there would exist the problem of whether one's merit would be a function of having done things in the right way or the wrong way because two different things would actually have happened.

There is no evidence that anything in the past, criminal, saintly or otherwise, could have been any different than it actually was. Anything other position is idle philosophic speculation. "I could have been captain of the football team." "I could have won the lottery." Yeah sure. Under other circumstances than actually existed but not in the real world as it was. This does not mean people cannot do better (or, unfortunately, worse) in the future.

That's pretty much where we left off so let me continue.

Now if you will look back Random Andy you will see as you know already of course that I also said "Since each person always did the best possible everyone deserves the very best." This line of thought is actually unjustified as it stands. So why did I write it? I was jumping way ahead and wanted to be succinct and get to the ultimate point without going into all the details. Now however I'm going to have top spell it all out.

"Every action that any person ever undertook was the only action possible under the circumstances." In the past. All actions actually taken are in the past.

And I also said:

"Therefore everyone did the best possible under the circumstances and everyone merits the very best."

But one might just as well say:

"Therefore everyone did the worst possible under the circumstances and everyone merits the very worst."

Both conclusions in fact are equally justified. But this is crazy. How can it be that from one single situation one can conclude both that one deserves the very best and the very worst? You would say this is absurd.

That's right it is absurd.

So where does this leave us?

This absurdity -- the fact that two opposites can be concluded from one and the same situation -- means something. It means neither conclusion about merit is valid. It means that from the fact that a person did the only thing possible no conclusion about merit can be drawn at all.

Yet it remains a fact that one did the only thing possible under the circumstances. There exists no material evidence to the contrary and there never has existed any such evidence.

But there is something else. Something even more important. The fact that no conclusion about merit can be drawn from a person's actions, which were the only actions possible under the circumstances-- this fact of not being able to draw a conclusion about merit -- MEANS SOMETHING ELSE as well.

What else does it mean?

What it means is that the factors which determine merit -- what we call "merit" -- are not to be found in the actions of the persons about whom we are making merit judgements. Merit is not "there" in the actions a person has taken.

But there is more. We're at the most important part.
Well if merit does not exist "there" in the actions another person has taken then where does merit exist?

It exists in us. The basis of what we call merit exists in us. It exists in we who are judging the actions of others.

What "merit" really consists of is simply our emotional reactions to the actions of others.

(This does not mean of course that the emotions we have with respect to the actions of others have nothing to do with the nature of those actions. It's related to that but also related to other things as well and things in us. "It's related to everything it's related to, and not related to what it's not related to."It varies of course from case to case.)

Merit is simply what we WANT with respect to others. It's totally simple. It's simply what we want to do to them or what we want to happen to them. We want to punish criminals and reward heroes. It's a manifestation of our desires. It's our emotional reaction to the actions of others.

Sorry this is so long. I've gone to a lot of trouble and explanation to get to this point Andy but it's very very simple. What we calll merit is just our emotional reaction to the actions of others.

I'm going to have to stop here but there are more important things that need to be said. There are the ramificationsof all this. I'll try to get back to you later today or tomorrow or certainly no later than Monday.

The next important point is: 'Well if merit is just what we want to happen to others, what SHOULD we want to happen to others?" And this obviously is a very important topic.

And eventually I will get to the point of "Everyone merits nothing less than the very best" and I will put that into realistic perspective.

Comments? Random Andy?

London ... how I liked visiting there and how I'd like to visit again...

(Random Andy there was a question you had above I didn't see until just recently about what's best for students of different capabilities. I'll try to get to that later. Basically the answer is we want what's best for everybody but what the specifics entail is more difficult and it may take further research to determine these answers. I'll leave this question until later.)

 

I think everyone deserves the best because that's the way they're likely to do best in future.

That doesn't mean everyone's entitled to everything. Frexample, you don't deserve a mercedes s600 or whatever it was, if you don't know how to drive, or if you've killed loads of people in the past by driving too fast and drunk.

 

So Random Andy I'll try to make this my last installment.

What we call "merit" is simply our emotional reaction to the actions of others (or ourselves). This includes what we DO to others on the basis of that emotional reaction. That which is done to others in the name of what they "deserve" or "merit" is simply what we want, what we desire, to do to them on the basis of our emotional reaction to them. It's as simple as that.
No fancy philosophy required.

So what SHOULD we do to others on the basis of their actions??? There need to be guidelines. Otherwise it's a free for all with bad things taking place. Those guidelines are what we call MORALITY. And whom to listen to? A Quaker will tell you one thing, a Catholic another, a criminal will tell you this, his victim that, his family, the prosecutor, the defender all something else...

What should we do, what actions should we take, toward others on the basis of their actions? What is moral? Here's my answer and how I got there. All our actions are voluntary. That means they derive from our desires. All our voluntary actions are intended to fulfill our own desires. Thus in that sense all our actions are selfish. Nevertheless some of our actions also serve the interests, the desires, of others. In fact one can divide human actions into 2 groups: actions that serve only the self and actions that serve both the self AND OTHERS.

I define MORAL actions as those that serve the self (all actions are intended to serve the self) AND OTHERS. But this definition is not quite enough. For example I could give a gun to another person who wants to rob a bank and yes I would be serving his interests and desires but this would be harmful to those stolen from or those jeopardized by the gun. Or I could give someone an elaborate meal and that would serve his interests but there might be hundreds starving at the door whose lives could be saved and their interests thus served by sharing that meal. So there has to be a specification for EQUALITY. One morally is obliged to look across the board otherwise all kinds of situations would be justified that benefit just a few people and that's just about as selfish as benefiting only one's self.

Therefore my definition is that MORAL ACTION consists of endeavor that serve OTHERS as well as (inevitably) one' s SELF taken in a context of EQUALITY.

And from this definition of morality, I won't go into the details but you can pretty well see the connection, I derive the mandate that EVERYONE DESERVES THE VERY BEST POSSIBLE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF EQUALITY.


I need to finish here quickly but I still want to deal with the issue of criminals and the Mercedes S600.

So how do we deal morally with criminals? Is there justification for putting them in protective custody? Yes, until they are rehabilitated, if that's the only way to protect others, because if they were given free reign they would harm others and provoke the inequalities that one is morally trying to correct. Should they be "punished"? No not if by punishment you mean inflicting pain or suffering on them because you derive pleasure from doing this, this is not moral activity and it's no different than what the criminal himself did in the first place (he either desired to inflict pain or did not care if he did so). I'm running out of time but you get the picture we want to make everything better for everyone there's no excuse for making things worse or leaving some by the wayside.

The Mercedes S600? Well if there are enough to go around and all other more pressing needs are taken care of and it's to no one's harm -- all other things being equal and ok -- OF COURSE everyone deserves one. If they don't want one or they want something else that's fine but certainly everyone merits one, everyone merits the best of everything, there is no reason we should not all want the best for everyone.

Or let me put it this way.

It's NOT the case that one does not merit a Mercedes S600 because one is black.

It's not the case that one does not merit one because one is female.

It's not the case that one doesn't merit one because one is handicapped.

It's not the case that one does not merit one because one is queer.

It's not the case that one does not merit one because one is a janitor.

It's not the case that one does not merit one because one is not a neurosurgeon or fancy lawyer.

It's not the case that one does not merit one because one didn't inherit a shitload of money or the family business.

It's not the case that one does not merit one because one is not a great athlete or beauty queen or rock star or genius.

It's not the case that one does not merit one because one is in prison for something totally unrelated.

It's not the case that one does not merit one because one did not have a great idea.

It's not the case that one does not merit one because one did not work hard enough. In many cases one couldn't have worked any harder.

It IS the case that one does not merit one when lots of people don't have food or education or healthcare.

That should be more than enough for an outline if you have any questions "shoot".

 

Is it the case that someone deserves a mercedes s600 when they have repeatedly driven dangerously and possibly killed someone in the past? Please teach me, oh master.

 

Hey I'm happy to reply...

Sorry Andy I was away a few days. Which is maybe a good thing because it allows stuff to sink in. To answer the question you pose let me go back to the 2 major points summarized very briefly.

The first major point is "merit" doesn't even exist. What we call "merit" is nothing more than one's emotional reaction to the actions of others. Merit is not objective it's ultimatey subjective. (Why is it important to know this? Because people pretend merit is something objective and they use it to manipulate others. So when someone says you don't merit or deserve something you better think twice. When they say you do or don't "merit" something all it really means is they do or don't want you to have it. You better examine their motivations, the emotions behind their motivations because that's all that "merit" really is. Their emotional reaction to the situation. Sometimes their motivations are good but asometimes they're bad and you have to be on the lookout when someone says you do or don't "merit" something.)

So does someone who has repeatedly driven recklessly and injured people deserve or merit a Mercedes S600? Well all that "deserve" or "merit" really means is "Do you WANT to give them a Mercedes S600?" and the answer is no, probably for the good reason that you don't want anyone else to get injured. But one doesn't really need to say "You don't deserve the car." All one needs to say is "I don't want to give you the car because you might hurt someone."

"You merit such and such" means nothing more than "I want for you such and such." That was the first major point.

But there's a second point. People can want all sorts of stuff. Some good some bad. So there needs to be a guiding moral principle. What is the moral principle? It is, as I said, that everyone should want to do the very best for everyone else within a context of equality. Or if you want to use the phoney language of merit you say "Everyone deserves the very best possible within a context of equality." Does this rule hold up for the guy who has repeatedly injured others by bad driving? Of course it does. Because if he injures others he's putting them in a less equal condition.
BUT if you could give him a Mercedes S600 or whatever vehicle under such circumstances as to be sure that he would not cause any future injuries then it would be fine for him to have one. You always want to do the best possible for someone else within the framework of equality/not hurting anyone else in the process. Within the context of equality/not hurting anyone else, to use again the phoney/disguising language of merit, "Everyone deserves the very best." It just means that within that framework you should want to do the very best for everbody.

 

Unlimited demand, limited resources.

I want the best of everything, the best house, the S600, the best mountain bike, the best holidays on surf charters in fiji, new clothes every season, every new CD and DVD, a new computer twice a year.

I can afford some of these things, but not all. That's what money does - it rations goods. I can drive a better car than someone richer than me if I choose to use more of my purchasing power on a car than he does.

Similarly, I can work more or less or at higher paying but more stressful or less pleasant jobs. Or I can be a lifeguard at the beach part time. Anybody can work hard for a summer, save thousands and be a backpacker for six months or a year. When you come back, you will be poorer than the person that worked all year round and had a holiday camping at the nearby state park.

These "equality for all" ideas ignore all this and try to offer everybody everything, or at the least everyone the same thing. But it corrupts every aspect of the system.

Also there is nothing phoney or disguising about merit and subjectivity. People should subjectively decide what they think is best - that's why they buy 50 cent albums and that's why 50 cent is rich. it is not unjust that ani defranco makes less money from her music.