What do you mean I don’t deserve what I’ve worked hard for!
I mean you don’t deserve it any more than anyone else.
I worked hard for it. Of course I deserve it.
One doesn’t follow from the other.
Of course it does. Someone who didn’t work for it wouldn’t deserve it. I did work for it!
They couldn’t have, of their own accord, worked for it, and you couldn’t have not worked for it.
Why couldn’t they have? And why couldn’t I have not?
Because causal events have led them and you to the only possibility. And if there did happen to be another possibility due to non-causal events, those would be entirely out of theirs and your control anyway. There is no free will.
Fine, let’s assume that’s the case. So?
So basically you are saying that you deserve X quality of life because you worked hard for it, while another person doesn’t deserve X quality of life, because they did not work hard for it (they deserve Y, not X). X being a better quality of life than Y.
You better believe it. I put my hard work, sweat, and time into obtaining X quality of life. If they had as well, they’d deserve X quality of life as well.
But again, they couldn’t have and you couldn’t have not.
Fine, then they couldn’t have X and I couldn’t not have X as well.
That doesn’t mean you deserve X over them. It just means that you have X and they don’t.
What, do you think – I should give them half of X even though they didn’t work for it?
I didn’t say that.
It’s implied in saying I don’t deserve X over them.
No, it’s implied that you don’t deserve X over them, not that you should give them half of X.
Wouldn’t it be unfair for me not to give them half of X if they deserved it just as much as I do?
Yes it would.
But you just said I shouldn’t give them half.
I didn’t say that either.
Okay, you are just playing games then, so I’ll ask you directly. Should I give them half of X?
That’s a much more difficult question in which we’d need to look at the consequences of giving them half (or rather distributing wealth equally).
So you’re saying that if the consequences are more harmful, that it may be okay for me to be unfair and keep all of X?
I’m saying it may be more unfair to inflict certain consequences on to people than it would be to fairly redistribute wealth.
Then why should I care if I don’t deserve X over another?
Because if everyone understood this important fact we might be able to mitigate the consequences of equality of outcome. Currently such is impractical and fraught with problems. Much of those problems are due to people thinking they are more deserving, and because of that they simply won’t be productive if their production doesn’t amount to more than others who aren’t as productive.
I agree. People need personal incentive to be productive. It only makes sense.
The need for personal incentive doesn’t necessarily mean that such incentive in order to be productive makes sense.
Why not?
Because it doesn’t follow that psychological need means such need is sensible. But even if it did make sense, productivity could be entirely about the society in which one lives. If people aren’t productive, that society will have problems, and that means, most likely, so will they. That should be sufficient enough “incentive”. An incentive that doesn’t require thinking one is more deserving over another.
Even if most people thought this way, there would always be some that don’t. They’d let everyone else do all of the work while they reap the benefits.
They couldn’t be otherwise. Again, they wouldn’t be less deserving of the benefits.
Why should people work hard in such a society for others who are lazy?
They would understand that they couldn’t have not been lazy. I’m certainly not suggesting that those being lazy shouldn’t be reasoned with. Failing that, however, we must show compassion for them.
Screw that. I’m not showing compassion for them. That will just give them no incentive to work.
But the few that didn’t work wouldn’t cause a problem in such a society. Again, we are working under the scenario that most people understand being productive is about the society they live in, rather than individualistic personal objectives that imply deserve.
Well such a society is unrealistic anyway. Most people will need personal incentive.
Most people believe they deserve personal incentive above others who don’t deserve it because they didn’t earn it.
Fine, most people believe they deserve it, so it’s an unrealistic goal to attempt to change that.
Just because most people believe something doesn’t mean it’s impossible that such could change in the future. We are in an information age. One where one person can effect what others on the opposite end of the planet think. Keep in mind it’s only been around 20 years since broadband Internet first came out.
Pshhh, please. We know how equaling things out really goes. Just look at how well communism in the Soviet Union went.
First, that was a specific system based on Marxism-Lenninism with various inherent problems. For example the authoritarian position of Lenninism and Stalisnism and the perceived need for dictatorship at the time. There are a number of causal factors that led to economic collapse of the soviet union. That, however, doesn’t mean that if everyone understood equal deserve, that there couldn’t be a stable solution around such understanding.
Capitalism has been shown to allow a society to thrive. Competition and incentive breeds production.
I never said it didn’t. But the reason it does has more to do with this feeling of free will which people possess, and their psychological needs based on such. Yes, we need to play to such psychologies until they change (if they do). But that doesn’t mean such psychologies are reasonable, rational, or logical. It simply means they exist. The understanding that they aren’t rational also will allow us to output a balancing act between productivity and fairness, rather than allow extreme levels of inequality and unfairness in.
I don’t care what you say. I deserve what I earn. I own it.
Ah, ownership rights. That’s another long topic. Needless to say you own something because the society you live in puts that rule in place, not because there is necessarily a reason for something “belonging to you”.
Sigh, I got to go. Maybe next time we can have this discussion on ownership.
Sounds like a plan.
If this dialogue gave you a little “food for thought” subscribe to my blog (right hand side). Also, if you are interested in the free will topic (why we don’t have it and why words like “deserve” don’t make sense due to this understanding), check out my book Breaking the Free Will Illusion for the Betterment of Humankind. It also has various dialogues in it addressing the free will topic and why it’s incompatible in both a deterministic universe as well as an indeterministic universe.
To keep informed of various updates, subscribe to my infrequent newsletter:
'Trick Slattery
Latest posts by 'Trick Slattery (see all)
- Semantic Shift Day, August 31 – REMINDER! Mark your calendar! - August 1, 2020
- Debunking Dennettian Diatribe - May 2, 2018
- Compatibilism: A Parable (comic) - December 7, 2017
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.