Since dessert usually comes at the end of a meal and is often seen as a reward for good behavior, it`s easy to see how people often misunderstand this. In the following examples, desserts were mistakenly exchanged for desserts – but since these phrases refer to crime and punishment, references to sweet treats don`t really make sense: the origin of French serve is also the Latin verb that makes us serve, meaning that the desert (“deserved”) and dessert are actually related. It`s just that only desserts and only desserts have very different meanings. In the United States, the consequences of violating these laws are based on a retaliatory justice system, in which a person is held accountable for their crime and punishment is imposed in the form of their “just desserts.” (Slate) “Justice exists when people receive their right desserts. The commission of a crime should have consequences. It was not justice,” he said. (Washington Times) So you can go to the restaurant and tell the waiter that you are only interested in the desserts that we hope will be your desserts after a long and hard day or a special achievement. It`s easy to confuse desserts with desserts, as both words are pronounced the same way. But the word deserts in this sentence has nothing to do with cake and ice cream or with dry, sandy places. Instead, the desert comes from the same root as merit, which should help you understand the meaning of this sentence: a punishment that is rightly deserved. If you get your deserts righteous, you will receive a reasonable punishment for every crime you have committed. The English words “deserve” and “desert” are derived from the old French deservir (new French: to serve), which has the same meaning. While “win” is common as a verb, the result of the noun “desert” is rare in colloquial language; It is used almost exclusively in the phrase “desert only” (for example, “Although she was not initially arrested for the crime, she later received her desert”).
The alternative spelling “desserts only” is a play on words with this original term. [1] We once introduced the word comeuppance as our word of the day. Comeuppance, as we define it, means “reward won or simply deserted, usually unpleasant”. Many of our brilliant and dedicated users have written to us to tell us that there is a typo in the definition: only desserts should only be desserts. Nozick`s criticism has been interpreted in different ways. The conventional understanding of this is a libertarian assessment of procedural justice, which claims that while it may be true that people`s actions are determined in whole or in part by morally arbitrary factors, this is not relevant to the allocation of distribution shares. [5] Individuals are owners who have inviolable rights over their bodies and talents, and they have the freedom to use them, whether or not the property in their possession belongs to them for morally arbitrary reasons. The desert (/dɪˈzɜːrt/) is in philosophy the condition of winning something, whether good or bad.
It is sometimes called the moral desert to clarify the intended use and distinguish it from the dry desert biome. It is a concept often associated with justice: that good deeds must be rewarded and bad deeds punished. The “reward/punishment feeling” of the desert largely survives in (to obtain/receive one`s own) only deserts “to be punished or rewarded in a manner appropriate to one`s own actions or behaviors.” The right here does not mean “only”, but “suitable, appropriate”. Desert claims can usually be expressed as follows: Thing X wins Y because of Z. For example, I (X) get a good grade on my test (Y) because I learned hard (Z); Cincinnati (X) deserves to be praised (Y) because it is a pretty city (Z). Some authors have added another criterion, the Z rating. That is, agent X wins Y because of Z if X is responsible for Z (or alternatively, if X also wins Z). Given this provision, one does not deserve respect simply because one is a human being, because one is not responsible for being a human being (Z). Arguments like these are controversial because they suggest an intenability of intrinsic desert claims – that is, claims where Z simply means to be X. Less controversial when using steroids (X) to win in a run, it is said that you do not deserve to win (Y) because you are not responsible for your improved physical abilities and therefore do not win (Z).
Another, more unconventional interpretation of Nozick`s critique is proposed by Jean Hampton. She points out that there appears to be an underground hypothesis in Nozick`s rejection of Rawls` representation of natural foundations as collective assets. This hypothesis is the idea that the decisions individuals make about how they will use their work and property are those for which they should be held accountable. People who do not work hard and invest carelessly should be held accountable for these decisions and should not receive the support of an egalitarian welfare state. However, if they work hard and invest well, they should also be held accountable for these decisions and have the opportunity to reap the rewards of their efforts. Hampton asks “whether the reason for Nozick`s concept of absolute rights is not only an idea of freedom, but also an idea of moral responsibility that […] closely linked to our conception of freedom. [8] One of the most controversial rejections of the concept of desert was made by political philosopher John Rawls. Rawls, who wrote from the mid to late twentieth centuries, claimed that a person cannot claim to have been born with greater natural abilities (such as superior intelligence or athletic abilities), as this is only the result of the “natural lottery.” Therefore, this person does not morally deserve the fruits of his talents and / or efforts, such as a good job or a high salary. However, Rawls was cautious in explaining that although he rejected the concept of moral desert, people can still legitimately expect to receive the benefits of their efforts and/or talents.
The distinction here is between Desert and, in Rawls` own words, “legitimate expectations.” [2] Others have suggested that Rawls completely misunderstood the logic of the desert. [6] If justice gets what it deserves, then the foundation of the desert must ultimately not be deserved. Desert, however, is a relational concept that expresses a relationship between a deserved [clarification required] and a foundation of the desert. It simply destroys the character of the desert to demand, as Rawls does, that the foundation of the desert itself be deserved. For example, if we say that a man deserves a primary good because of a characteristic or action “Y”, we can always ask ourselves how Rawls does it: “But does he deserve `Y`?” and so on. We then have either an infinite regression of desert bases, or we arrive at a base, a starting point that the individual cannot claim to deserve or be responsible, but only that he was given or given by nature. After all, no man exists causa sui; Even reducing the basis of the claims to the very narrowness of life reveals Rawls` difficulty: certainly no one can “win” or “claim recognition for himself” his own existence. [Citation needed] There are other political philosophers who support the position described by Hampton. Their main observation is that sometimes people who are sick could be due to their own irresponsible behavior, and the accusation is that theories that favor a policy of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor ignore this crucial point, that is, people could be unevenly deserved because of their actions. [9] It is sometimes claimed that redistributive systems, often favored by egalitarian political theorists, could have catastrophic consequences, as they promote laziness and allow stowaways on the productive by sloths.
These arguments are decisive in their appeal to the undeserved. They point to the supposedly evil consequences of a redistributive social system and do not necessarily refer to the moral dignity of those who make more effort, smarter investments, etc. Sometimes the beloved characters leave far too early and sometimes the bad guys get their right deserts. (New York Times) Dessert, with the double S, means “cake, cake, fruit, pudding, ice cream, etc., served as the last course of the meal”. The meaning of the dessert is found at the end of the 18th century and finally comes from the French, whose verb to serve means “to clean the table”. As for dessert! What these users discovered, as eagle as they are, was not a typo, but an unknown desert feeling pronounced like dessert with its accent on the second syllable [dih-zurt]. Short dictionary of legal terms and abbreviations (mainly American). The phrase “desert only” was recorded in the early 1500s and is still popular today, for example. When the villain was imprisoned at the end of the film, viewers felt that he was getting his deserts right. Rawls` remarks about natural foundations provoked an oft-mentioned response from Robert Nozick. Nozick argued that treating people`s natural talents as collective assets contradicts the basis of ethical liberalism, which Rawls seeks to defend, that is, respect.dem of the individual, and distinction between people. [3] Nozick argued that Rawls` suggestion that not only natural talents, but also virtues of character are undeserved aspects of ourselves for which we cannot find recognition, “can only block the introduction of a person`s autonomous decisions and actions (and their outcomes) if everything remarkable about the person is completely attributed to certain types of `external` factors.
Comments are closed.