Someone kind of brought this up in another thread, and I think it should get its own separate thread. The idea of "deserving" something. I want to hear your opinions on it

I used to think people deserved things in certain conditions. Like if a person worked hard to get a good job and a lot of money, he deserved it. But I don't like that idea anymore

I don't think anybody deserves anything, you just get what you get and you try to make more. If you don't then nothing becomes of it. If you do then something does

This goes beyond entitlement. If a bank has a lot of money and is robbed, the bank robbers dont undeserve the money. They took it and if they get away with it, its theirs. If you steal money from an individual its a real dick move, but they didn't deserve it in the first place

I feel like regardless of how much work or effort I put into things a lot of it is fruitless in the end. I know with some things you just don't see success until late, and when you do it can be big. I also don't think there are such things as shortcuts, any way is a perfectly fine way. If it ends up hurting you then it was a bad move, but if it doesn't then it wasn't

I like things that are tangible and physically possible

__________________
Hazard to Others

What you are condoning is a world without any form of moral justice or respect.

I think what you're saying is easy to believe on paper, but when one considers that you are a human individual with feelings, such indifference would be hard practiced in real life.

And I'm talking about events in life far more emotionally taxing than taking a fruitless class, or getting a crappy grade on a paper project you busted your ass for.

EDIT: On that note, it sounds to me like an emotional survival tactic. People rarely come up with these ideas unless there is something in their own lives that compel them to resort to such a mindset.

I can empathize with that.

__________________

Heil Frasbee

Do criminals deserve to be punished, then?

I say yes.

__________________

That's just it.

If everyone thought in the way DM is talking about, then there really wouldn't be any need for law enforcement because nobody would believe in the law. There would simply wouldn't be any moral grounds to hold anybody accountable for their actions.

__________________

Heil Frasbee

I think DM's is a point of view on action and consequence.

I can't say as I would step up to saying what a person does or does not deserve, even if he is a criminal.

We, as a society, have determined punishments for what we deem crimes. Criminals make a choice, and if caught, suffer the penalties.

~Sphinx

__________________
You don't need eyes to see, you need vision. ~Faithless, Reverence.

So really, the idea that one deserves or does not deserve is rather frivolous...but it's not, it's really what drives people. Even if it is a somewhat abstract concept.

Take "love" for example. Love is not tangible but it's a definitely a driving force for much of western society.

__________________

Heil Frasbee

i agree with dm. the idea of deserving something is arbitrary.

the belief that you deserve something is much stronger.

there's really no difference between people who are filthy rich and people who are filthy poor. the only difference is that those rilthy rich people BELIEVE they deserve it. they may not deserve, in the eyes of someone else.

__________________


a wise man isn't always saved by his wisdom. just like a stupid man does not always do stupid things.

I think DM's point of view is mostly about justice, or to be more accurate, the lack of justice. I don't think the way to solve the problem is to do away with ALL forms of justice, even if they are only human constructs. Chaos would result.

Is justice always fair? No. Life is rarely fair.

__________________

Well no law enforcement is very necessary because a lot of stupid people do a lot of stupid crap that is harmful to others without reason. The fact that people don't really deserve anything doesn't mean we should be apathetic to cruelty like that.

And not all "criminals" are equal at all. Such as a rapist and a marijuana trafficker. A rapist did something morally wrong. A person who moved a few bricks of weed didn't. If a rapist gets caught they should be beaten and sent to jail for a long time and looked down upon because they are disgusting people. The marijuana trafficker, because he broke a law, will go to jail but it would not be right to look down upon him.

__________________
Hazard to Others

Doesn't that mean he deserves more respect than is commonly given to him?

I just don't see it, man. The argument you originally stated would make no need for law, because there would be no moral ground for it to stand upon.

A rapists deserves to be jailed because the victim doesn't deserve it.

__________________

Heil Frasbee

I think the topic's pretty subjective when you factor in morality.

How one person applies "deserves" in life will differ from the next.

Take genocide for example. One group feels that another deserves to be removed. It may be that this conflicts with many of the other groups' moral stances, and as a result, the offending group may be attacked themselves. Does this clarify who had deserved what? Perhaps if you go by majority rule. Yet, I'm sure that you will find instances in history where a minority group decided that they deserved something the majority was against, and you would agree with the minority's stance.

There isn't a global standard for morality. Some follow a religion's outlines and many create their own stance on right and wrong.

"Deserve" is simply a word I hesitate to use. I rely only on my personal stance on justice and the realization of the actions I am willing to take to defend it's place in my world. I cannot see the entire scope of a man's life down to the infinitesimal details. I cannot rely on my own perception to be of perfect morality, as it is subjective. Therefore I feel unfit to judge in matters of who deserves what.

~Sphinx

__________________
You don't need eyes to see, you need vision. ~Faithless, Reverence.

Laws don't need to stand on any moral ground, a lot of them already don't (such as the drug laws). They just need to be in place for society to run smoothly

__________________
Hazard to Others

So, where would you place a judge who is given the charge, by society, to decide the punishment of someone who has broken the laws of society? Are you saying we should live in anarchy?

__________________
A woman would never make a nuclear bomb. They would never make a weapon that kills, no, no. They'd make a weapon that makes you feel bad for a while.

Not at all.

A judge issues his decisions within the boundaries of the laws established by his particular society. Having actually committed a crime or not, a person who is accused and found guilty of breaking these laws is punished: choice and consequence. Who is to say whether the accused deserved it?

I enjoy living in a society with laws (as many laws coincide with my own views), and have no problem with a judge determining the consequences of someone who is found guilty of breaking such.

However, whether a man ultimately deserves the rewards or punishments he receives is not for me to say. I only accept that a man arrives at reward/punishment as a result of his decisions.

~Sphinx

__________________
You don't need eyes to see, you need vision. ~Faithless, Reverence.

Well said. In this case, I agree w/you.

__________________
A woman would never make a nuclear bomb. They would never make a weapon that kills, no, no. They'd make a weapon that makes you feel bad for a while.