What Do We Deserve?: A Reader on Justice and Desert

The concept of desert, which once enjoyed a central place in political and ethical theory, has been relegated to the margins of much of contemporary theory, if not excluded altogether. Recently a renewed interest in the topic has emerged, and several philosophers have argued that the notion merits a more central place in political and ethical theory. Some of these philosophers contend that justice exists to the extent that people receive exactly what they deserve, while others argue that desert should replace such considerations as rights, need, and equality as the basis for distributions. Still others argue that morality involves a fitting match between one's moral character and a degree of happiness. All of these positions have encountered opposition from egalitarians, libertarians, and those who are skeptical about the coherence of the concept of desert. The first anthology of its kind, What Do We Deserve? is a balanced collection of readings that brings sharply opposing positions and arguments together and stimulates debate over the meaning and significance of desert in current thought. The book begins with eight classical readings on desert (by Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Smith, Kant, Mill, Sidgwick, and Ross), and later turns to contemporary interpretations of the issue. The selections examine the concept itself, analyze its relationship to the ideas of freedom and responsibility, engage in the debate between John Rawls and his critics on the merits of desert, and, finally, study the wider role and significance of desert in political and ethical theory.

Table of Contents:
Preface I. Historical Interpretations of Desert Introduction: Louis P. Pojman 1: Plato: Justice as Harmony in the Soul and State 2: Aristotle: Justice as Equality According to Merit 3: Thomas Hobbes: Merit as Market Value 4: Adam Smith: Merit and Demerit 5: Immanuel Kant: Moral Worth as Alone Deserving Happiness 6: John Stuart Mill: Justice, Desert and Utility 7: Henry Sidwick: Justice as Desert 8: W.D. Ross: What Things Are Good? II. Contemporary Interpretations of Desert Introduction: Owen McLeod A. The Concept of Desert 9: Joel Feinberg, "Justice and Personal Desert" 10: John Kleining, "the Concept of Desert" 11: David Miller, "Deserts" 12: Julian Lamont, "The Concept of Desert in Distributive Justice" B. Desert and Responsibility 13: Galen Strawson, "The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility" 14: Harry Frankfurt, "Freedom of the Will and the Concept of Person" 15: David Miller, "Deserts" 16: Fred Feldman, "Desert" Reconsideration of Some Received Wisdom" C. The Rawlsian Debate 17: Herbert Spiegelberg, "The Argument for Equality from Compensatory Desert" 18: John Rawls, "A Theory of Justice" 19: Robert Nozick, "Anarchy, State and Utopia 20: Michael Sandel, "A Critique of Rawls' Theory of the Self and Desert" 21: Owen McLeod, "Desert and Institutions" 22: Samuel Scheffler, "Responsibility, Reactive Attitudesand Liberalism in Philosophy and Politics" D. The Role of Significance of Desert 23: Michael Slote, "Desert, Consent and Justice" 24: Norman Daniels, "Merit and Meritocracy" 25: Robert Goodin, "Negating Positive Desert Claims" 26: Robert Young, "Egalitarianism and the Modest Significance of Desert" 27: Fred Feldman, "Adjusting Utility for Justice" 28: Own McLeod, "Desert and Wages" 29: Louis Pojman, "Does Equality Trump Desert" 30: Shelly Kagan, "Equality and Desert" Bibliography

Review :
"An excellent anthology. Its selections will serve, I hope, to introduce students to the Rawlsian controversy once they have read Rawls, and to appreciate the role of desert more broadly. The readings seem nicely blended in degree of difficulty for students of varying backgrounds."--Louis Guenin, Harvard Medical School "Extremely well balanced and judicious choices. All major positions are well represented."--Allen Howard Podet, Buffalo State College "Very interesting approach to moral philosophy--almost a looking-glass approach to virtue ethics."--Manuel Davenport, Texas A&M University