Should Darren have won?
April 21st 2009 04:46
Darren is working his butt off training for a race. And not only does he work his butt off, but he's an amazing person -- he's kind, generous, and likes babies and small animals. And not only is he an amazing person, but winning the race would mean a lot to him. He could get an athletics scholarship, the girl he likes would finally notice him, his mother dying of cancer would see her dreams fulfilled, etc.
So Darren enters the race -- and he loses -- to the school bully, who not only is an asshole, but also didn't put an ounce of sweat into training -- he was just born with good genes. The victory means nothing to him, except another opportunity to laugh at Darren.
Someone who was aware of all the facts might be indignant and say, "That's not right", or "That's not fair", or "Darren deserved to win", or "Darren should have won".
But in what sense "should" Darren have won? By the laws of nature he shouldn't have won -- nature favoured the asshole.
What seems to be going on is something like this. We have beliefs about what would happen if this were an ideal universe. In the ideal universe, hard work pays off. In the ideal universe, dreams get fulfilled and assholes get their just deserts.
And really we're not asking for much. We don't often think that trees should be made of chocolate, or that there should be no pain in the world -- or if we do think these things, we're usually not indignant about them -- we're not completely unrealistic.
I regard this as example of the richness of language and of morality.
Philosophers often talk about the word "should" in terms of obligations, or in terms of what path of action leads to the best consequence (perhaps just in a down-to-earth sense, like "This is the hammer that you should use"). But the Darren example seems to be a different "should", depending on how one classifies -- it's something like what the universe is obliged to do (except that you're not thinking of the universe as an agent, and you needn't have in mind any sort of code of action with respect to which the universe should or shouldn't act).
Does "deserve" count as "moral language"? Well, again, this is a question of how you classify, but certainly "deserve" at least seems to have a lot to do with other moral terms. Not only "should", but also "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong", "fair" and "unfair", "just" and "unjust"... For instance, any of these could be substituted for the "x" in a formulation like "It is x that y happens" -- "It's wrong that Darren didn't win the race."
What is opened up is potentially a rich area for investigation -- the logic of the word "deserve". What are the various rules that people use to weigh up who deserves what? And how do they decide between competing rules?
Notes
-- In "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", Grandpo Joe tells Charlie, "You deserve it more because you want it more", "it" being a golden ticket.
So Darren enters the race -- and he loses -- to the school bully, who not only is an asshole, but also didn't put an ounce of sweat into training -- he was just born with good genes. The victory means nothing to him, except another opportunity to laugh at Darren.
Someone who was aware of all the facts might be indignant and say, "That's not right", or "That's not fair", or "Darren deserved to win", or "Darren should have won".
But in what sense "should" Darren have won? By the laws of nature he shouldn't have won -- nature favoured the asshole.
What seems to be going on is something like this. We have beliefs about what would happen if this were an ideal universe. In the ideal universe, hard work pays off. In the ideal universe, dreams get fulfilled and assholes get their just deserts.
And really we're not asking for much. We don't often think that trees should be made of chocolate, or that there should be no pain in the world -- or if we do think these things, we're usually not indignant about them -- we're not completely unrealistic.
***
I regard this as example of the richness of language and of morality.
Philosophers often talk about the word "should" in terms of obligations, or in terms of what path of action leads to the best consequence (perhaps just in a down-to-earth sense, like "This is the hammer that you should use"). But the Darren example seems to be a different "should", depending on how one classifies -- it's something like what the universe is obliged to do (except that you're not thinking of the universe as an agent, and you needn't have in mind any sort of code of action with respect to which the universe should or shouldn't act).
Does "deserve" count as "moral language"? Well, again, this is a question of how you classify, but certainly "deserve" at least seems to have a lot to do with other moral terms. Not only "should", but also "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong", "fair" and "unfair", "just" and "unjust"... For instance, any of these could be substituted for the "x" in a formulation like "It is x that y happens" -- "It's wrong that Darren didn't win the race."
What is opened up is potentially a rich area for investigation -- the logic of the word "deserve". What are the various rules that people use to weigh up who deserves what? And how do they decide between competing rules?
Notes
-- In "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", Grandpo Joe tells Charlie, "You deserve it more because you want it more", "it" being a golden ticket.
| 88 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
He who deserve reward morally is the one who has the decent motive (as in the chocolate factory, the kid), therefore grandpa is wrong to say you deserve it because you want it more, that is immoral.
Our world is not a moral one and there is no moral reward. The real moral agent is moral even if he knows that he will never be rewarded, here or anywhere else.