Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:29:20.856Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deservingness Transfers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2019

Knut Olav Skarsaune Open the ORCID record for Knut Olav Skarsaune [Opens in a new window]
Knut Olav Skarsaune*
Affiliation:
Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article seeks to cause trouble for a brand of consequentialism known as ‘desertarianism’. In somewhat different ways, views of this kind evaluate outcomes more favourably, other things equal, the better the fit between the welfare different people enjoy and the welfare they each deserve. These views imply that we can improve outcomes by redistributing welfare to fit desert, which seems plausible enough. Unfortunately, they also imply that we can improve outcomes by redistributing desert to fit welfare: in other words, by making happy people more deserving, at the cost of making unhappy people less deserving. Extant versions of desertarianism predict that such ‘deservingness transfers’ are improvements and that we ought to carry them out. Even worse, they will sometimes rank deservingness transfers higher than simply benefitting deserving people who are poorly off.

Type
Article
Information
Utilitas , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 209 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arneson, Richard. 1999. ‘Egalitarianism and Responsibility’, The Journal of Ethics, 3: 225–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arneson, Richard. 2004. ‘Luck Egalitarianism Interpreted and Defended’, Philosophical Topics, 32: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arneson, Richard. 2007. ‘Desert and Equality’, in Egalitarianism: New Essays on the Nature and Value of Equality, ed. by Holtug, Nils and Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 262–93.Google Scholar
Arrhenius, Gustaf. 2007. ‘Meritarian Axiologies and Distributive Justice’, in Hommage à Wlodek. Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowitcz, ed. by Rønnow-Rasmussen, Toni, Petersson, Björn, Josefsson, Jonas, and Egonsson, Dan, <www.fil.lu.se/hommageawlodek> [accessed 8 March 2018].Google Scholar
Carlson, Erik. 1997. ‘Consequentialism, Distribution and Desert’, Utilitas, 9: 309–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Fred. 1995. ‘Adjusting Utility for Justice: A Consequentialist Reply to the Objection from Justice’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 55: 567–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Fred. 2002. ‘The Good Life: A Defense of Attitudinal Hedonism’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 56: 604–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Fred. 2006. Pleasure and the Good Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Hurka, Thomas. 2001. ‘The Common Structure of Virtue and Desert’, Ethics, 112: 6–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, Shelly. 2012. The Geometry of Desert (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelkin, Dana Kay. 2016. ‘Difficulty and Degrees of Moral Praiseworthiness and Blameworthiness’, Nous, 50: 356–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skow, Bradford. 2012. ‘How to Adjust Utility for Desert’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 90: 235–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallentyne, Peter. 1995. ‘Taking Justice Too Seriously’, Utilitas, 7: 207–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Gary. 1996. ‘Two Faces of Responsibility’, Philosophical Topics, 24: 227–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar