Pojman argues that we should strive to form a world in which "the virtuous are rewarded and the vicious punished in proportion to their relative deserts." Do you agree with Pojman that we deserve what we earn, or do you see problems with his stance? Form a cohesive, well-argued three-page paper in which you explore this question. Use specific examples, and support your arguments.
I agree. There should be consequences for actions, so that people cannot do whatever they want. The world would be in total chaos if everyone did what they wanted to when they wanted to. What do you think?
From a psychological standpoint, it would make sense. People tend to repeat actions that lead to rewards and avoid actions that (only) lead to punishment. However, in real life, some vicious acts are immediately rewarded with the punishment only coming after a significant delay, as in our legal system.
To form a comprehensive analysis of Pojman's argument, let's start by understanding his stance. Pojman claims that we should aim for a world where individuals are rewarded or punished in proportion to their relative deserts, based on their virtuous or vicious actions. This viewpoint raises a fundamental question about the concept of deserving what we earn, and whether there are any potential issues with this proposition. In this paper, we will examine both sides of the argument and provide a balanced evaluation of Pojman's stance.
One critique of Pojman's perspective is that it fails to account for factors beyond individual effort and choices. According to this viewpoint, we would only deserve our rewards or punishments based on our own actions, disregarding any external influences such as socio-economic conditions, opportunities, or systemic inequalities. However, it is important to recognize that these factors play a significant role in determining an individual's outcomes.
For instance, consider two individuals: John and Sarah. John grew up in a financially stable household with access to quality education, mentorship, and various opportunities for personal growth and development. On the other hand, Sarah faced the opposite circumstances, growing up in poverty with limited resources and a lack of educational opportunities. If we solely attribute John's success and Sarah's failure to their respective virtues or vices without considering their contrasting starting points, it seems unjust. Sarah's disadvantages were not a result of her own choices, making it problematic to advocate for proportionate punishment solely based on personal desert.
Furthermore, Pojman's stance assumes that individuals have full control over their choices and actions, which overlooks the complexities of human decision-making. It disregards the influence of cognitive biases, emotional states, and external circumstances that shape our choices. People often act based on their emotions, instincts, and subconscious biases, which aren't necessarily indicative of their true character or moral virtue. In this sense, the binary categorization of individuals into the virtuous and the vicious is overly simplistic and fails to capture the multifaceted nature of human behavior.
Additionally, the measurement of deservingness is a challenging task. How can we accurately quantify one's virtuousness or viciousness to determine the exact proportionality of rewards or punishments? It is subjective and open to interpretation. Different people may have different criteria and standards when assessing an individual's moral character. For example, a strict utilitarian might argue that anyone who causes harm to others should be punished impartially, while others might emphasize the need for a more nuanced evaluation.
Moreover, Pojman's perspective assumes that the virtuous should be rewarded and the vicious should be punished. However, this binary categorization fails to acknowledge the potential for personal growth, change, and redemption. It neglects the possibility of rehabilitation and transformation, which have long been recognized in various legal systems. Efforts should be made to provide opportunities for individuals to learn, develop, and change their behavior, rather than solely focusing on retribution.
In conclusion, while Pojman's argument strives for a world where rewards and punishments are proportionate to an individual's deserts, there are several problems with this stance. It overlooks external influences and systemic inequalities, oversimplifies human decision-making, grapples with ambiguous measurement, and fails to account for personal growth and redemption. A more comprehensive approach would involve addressing the underlying factors that shape individual outcomes, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, and providing opportunities for personal development and transformation.