Pojman argues that we should strive to form a world in which “the virtuous are rewarded and the vicious are punished in proportion to their relative deserts.” I agree with Pojman as his stance is a sound and a well reasoned one. The virtuous should virtuously rewarded and the vicious punished. The more effort done, the higher should be the reward and the more evil an act is the more severe should be the punishment. According to Pojman’s position on this subject, to fail to accord credit and worth for righteous would be much unfair whereas according recognition and rewarding the vicious is also grossly unfair. Failure to punish evil ways intuitively lacks moral basis and rationale. Everyone should be treated no better or worse than he deserves.
Using a desert; a “three place relation”, with the elements: the subject (the person who committed an act), an object (reward, praise, compensation) and the basis (effort, contribution, moral virtue), as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, Pojman views these in totality as being a subcategory of merit which pertains to voluntary action. It therefore constitutes the desirability and acceptability of a person’s decisions and actions and is much inherent in moral responsibility. In the same sense, it is thus fairer that greater effort and virtuous living deserve greater reward and a person who commits murder or robbery with violence should be more severely punished than simple theft (Pojman, “Justice and Desert” 99 – 100).
If someone kills another person the punishment should be execution but not out of anger for what the crime was. Pojman supports the aspect of punishment called retribution. Retributivism is the theory that the criminal deserves to be punished in proportion of the gravity of his/her crime, whether or not the victim requests it (Waller, 2008). I would fully expect and accept the death penalty if I killed someone. I would be wrong in my actions and it should be understood that I would be set as an example. If anyone is executed for his murderous crime then that makes other criminals think twice.
It is in the nature of human to recompense those who do good to us and punish those who wrong us. As elaborated by Pojman, the sense of gratitude for people who do munificent work and the “resentful outrage” for those who do wicked things are vicarious feelings that could be felt even when the viewers are not in our immediate circle. I feel much exhilarated by acts of children and the virtuous and hope for them to be immensely rewarded. On the contrary, I deplore genocidal acts and curse the perpetrators.
It is not just a matter of scaling the balance between two intrinsically good things; pleasure and virtue. A third element of distribution of pleasure and pain to the virtuous and the vicious is offered in the formula by W D Ross as quoted in (Pojman, “Justice and Desert” 102). This constitutes the “duty of justice” (102). Pojman follows Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics in his definition of justice; “Equals are to be treated equally and unequals unequally.” (Pojman, “Theories of Equality”).
In the light of the above, justice on the basis of desert does not repudiate equal opportunity or reciprocity. The theory of justice as fairness preclude desert as a basis for distributive justice because people are subject to social contingencies that affect their opportunities and practices.
I believe desert neither repudiates nor contravenes the basic tenets of equal opportunity but rather compliments it. In using desert as a basis of distribution, people with different desert claims are treated differently while those situated in similar desert claims are treated equally. Punishment, which is not based on flimsy grounds like vengeance is graduated according to the degree of crime while rewards are apportioned according to degree of achievement and excellence. This agrees with Aristotle’s view of justice adopted by Pojman.
Recognition that some people strive and work harder to achieve than others can never be considered as being unfair. It is a fact that has to be recognized by the society if at all people were to be encouraged to do good or be discouraged from doing bad. It is thus sound to argue that desert sees the potentials and innate capacities of people and celebrates their pursuit of common good by using these talents and capabilities instead of just preserving and protecting their assets.
At this point, Pojman’s argument on the efficacy of desert comes to the fore. According to Pojman, a society that endeavours to reward those who do good for the general welfare and to punish those who undermine it has better chances for survival and prosperity than a society which does not practice these. This is very true. In a sense when people expect something of value for good conduct, they will always aspire to be good. Judicial punishment thus serves social good.
In conclusive terms, Pojman’s meritocracy philosophy evokes many possibilities in the bigger social realm, which is the world arena. Substituting individuals to nations, the gains of using justice as a desert could be magnified to benefit a larger group of people. Although issues bordering on political concepts such as sovereignty and independence, and also philosophical beliefs such as diversity of moral systems in pluralistic societies have challenged this reasoning, an international system of rewards and punishment is in place and may be enhanced through the passage of time, this being very possible according to centuries of global experience.
References
Louis Pojman. (2001). “Justice and Desert.” Queensland University of Technology Law
and Justice Journal 1.1
Waller, B. N. (2008). Consider ethics: Theory, readings, and contemporary issues (2nd
Ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.
