8/14/2019 Phil 120 Essay 1

1/5

Nathaniel Kan

Philosophy 120

First Paper

It is quite commonly accepted by both utilitarians and deontologists that desert is

at least instrumentally good; that is, that giving people what they deserve generally leads

to higher welfare. For example, one might say that in general, punishment for a crime is a

deterrent to future crimes, and therefore by giving a criminal what he deserves

(punishment), we are increasing the future good (reducing future crime). Or by rewarding

individuals for good acts (saving lives, recycling, and so on) we are promoting the

propagation of similar good acts. But does desert have any intrinsic value beyond what it

can add towards increasing total well-being? I claim the answer is yes, and why and to

what degree I will attempt to demonstrate through thought experiment in this paper.

Imagine a dictator whose brutal regime is responsible for the deaths of thousands

of innocents. When his regime is overthrown, he flees to a small uninhabited island, on

which there are sufficient resources for him to live alone and peacefully, separate from

society without means to return, with net positive utility. Thus he lives out the rest of his

life, affecting no one, and dies. Let us call this scenario A.

Now instead of living out his life, imagine that shortly after his arrival to the

island, a covert CIA assassin tracks him to the island and kills him, to make extra sure

that he will never come to power anywhere again. No knowledge of his death is ever

revealed to society; in both scenarios everyone believes he died with the fall of his

regime. Call this scenario B.

8/14/2019 Phil 120 Essay 1

2/5

Which is the morally superior scenario? A utilitarian would say A would have

greater total utility, as we count the dictator's well-being from living out his life in the

total sum, and therefore A would be morally preferable. However it seems a repugnant

idea for the dictator to go unpunished for his actions, and not get "what he deserves," and

for that reason we might say that B is preferable.

A utilitarian might refute this argument by saying that normally having a strict

moral code of punishing bad acts and rewarding good acts serves society well because

otherwise extensive calculation would be necessary for every decision. Moral code is a

chart we have calculated beforehand to make real world decisions easier; for example, we

say in general, murder is wrong and there are repercussions for it. Desert matters insofar

as it makes things run smoothly when we follow general rules about giving people what

they deserve.

But in response to that argument, I offer the following modification of the

example. Suppose that the dictator is again stranded on the deserted island, but there is

another man stranded on another very close by island. This man has done good acts

throughout his life, and is now stuck on his island due to an ill fortuned shipwreck. Both

men are capable of living out their lives with the same net positive utility, never able to

return to society, and neither capable of interacting with the other. But suppose there is a

carnivorous monkey on a tree in the water between the two islands, who will jump to one

island and eat the man on it, and then stay there. Who should die, and who should live? I,

and I think almost everyone would agree, believe that it is apparent that the dictator

should die, and the good man should live. If one has to die, why shouldn't it be the man

8/14/2019 Phil 120 Essay 1

3/5

who has done evil his whole life?1

Opponents of this argument could make two strong arguments against it: first, that

our moral intuitions are not useful in determining superior moral situations, at least, they

are not objective, and second, that the thought experiment is not actually a closed

environment, that is, we need to take into account ourutility.

The first argument claims that because our moral intuitions are based on a long

and arbitrary history they are not valid as evidence of whether or not a moral system is

superior. Because our moral intuitions are generally developed from our moral codes,

they do not tell us anything new, or anything towards an underlying truth; it is circular to

define a system of comparing situations on a moral scale based on moral intuitions based

on a moral code which comes from that system.

To this I would maintain that completely discarding our moral intuitions is not

practical, as it is the only measurement for any moral system we devise. Even

utilitarianism does not discard allmoral intuitions; the idea that well-being is an intrinsic

good comes from our most basic moral intuition. Furthermore, there is no evidence that

there is some underlying moral equivalent to natural law that justifies certain moral codes

and contradicts our intuitions; without any evidence to point to laws about the structure of

morality, we have to believe that moral codes are developed for the smooth operation of

society. We can imagine some alien race who have an entirely different view of morality,

and who would be to say that oursystem would be better than theirs?

Without our moral intuitions, it is impossible to understand any moral theory,

including utilitarianism. A utilitarian can look at utilitarianism and ask herself, "Why is

1 Note at this point that there is no mention of the degree to which desert matters intrinsically, or how much

desert equals how much total well-being. It might very well be the case that desert matters very little, and

then in the first situation A might be morally preferable, because desert matters so much less than total

well-being.

8/14/2019 Phil 120 Essay 1

4/5

well-being intrinsically good?" The only answer to that question is because our moral

intuitions tell us so.

The second argument is much stronger. The utilitarian can assert that the reason

we choose the dictator to die instead of the good man is because it gives us utility to do

so. The thought experiment is not a closed system; we need to take into account our own

benefit from the result, because all though we say no one in society within the experiment

knows whether it is the dictator or the good man who dies, we, as a non-impartial arbiter

of the experiment, know, and that corrupts the results. This fits in with utilitarianism. If

the situation were to ever happen in reality, it would make no difference which man was

devoured, but because it is in our minds, we decide the outcome that gives us the most

utility.

It is true that when events occur in conformity with our moral intuitions we gain

utility; that is why we feel satisfied when an evil man receives the punishment he

deserves. But does that make it

A moral code with desert is better than a moral code without it, because it fits our

intuitions better, and that is the only way we have of measuring the success of a moral

system.

Desert has intrinsic moral significance

o

Example: Imagine a dictator responsible for deaths of thousands isoverthrown and escapes to a deserted island from which he has no meansof escape. A law enforcement agent tracks him down should he kill

him?

Utilitarian view on punishment:

o Reasons for punishment then are:

To serve as a deterrent

To prevent evil-doers from committing further crimes

8/14/2019 Phil 120 Essay 1

5/5

(incarceration)

Welfare increase for victims

o Punishment that went unknown would be pointless

Pluralist would say:

o Intrinsic reason to punish: Justice

Seems like dictator should be punished, even though no one would know and hewould never be able to cause harm again. Anything else would conflict with our

natural sense of justice.

o Utilitarian: Our sense of justice is derived from moral codes that are

convenient for application in society, but shouldn't bestrict

If he is repentant, does that make a difference?

o Christianity: Yes, second chance etc

o Empirically many would say yes (stipulating dictator is truly repentant)

Thus how can we say it is just to punish him in desert island

scenario, as it would depend on whether he was repentant or not

Maybe everyone would agree on punishing the dictator, but what if

he just killed one man? While drunk?

o Utilitarian:

Economics cons. Fiscal policy, etc

Dictator and good man example one gets eaten who should it be

o Universal agreement on dictator

This leads to desert mattering intrinsically, if only a little bit

Go back to the deserted island with only the dictator example

Now we might say he desert matters so little that he should

live in most cases, because the welfare from him living

outweighs his deserving to die