![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
everythingisoptionalHot take: “deserve” is a mind-killing word, and we’d be better off removing it from our vocabulary. When you want to say “X deserves Y”, try changing it to “X has earned Y” which, if the idea you’re trying to communicate is a good one, will probably communicate that idea more clearly.
As I see it, the main usefulness of the word “deserve” is to enable us to communicate about scenarios where we [dis]incentivize certain actions by enforcing social norms that link them to certain consequences. But the concept of “earning” also allows us to communicate about such scenarios without the risk of being confused with the other meaning of the concept of “deserving”, which is where “X deserves Y” translates to “It is a terminal moral good for X to receive Y”. This latter definition of “deserving” is vacuous because, by that definition, literally every sentient being throughout all time and space “deserves” to live in [what they’d consider] a perfect utopia for as long as they want (yes, even people who do horrible things, even Hitler, even rapists, even Trump, etc.).
In summary, many debates about whether or not “X deserves Y” seem to stem from conflation of instrumental and terminal values. Talking instead about whether or not “X has earned Y” or whether or not “people who do what X did should be [dis]incentivized with consequence Y” removes this confusion.
As I see it, the main usefulness of the word “deserve” is to enable us to communicate about scenarios where we [dis]incentivize certain actions by enforcing social norms that link them to certain consequences. But the concept of “earning” also allows us to communicate about such scenarios without the risk of being confused with the other meaning of the concept of “deserving”, which is where “X deserves Y” translates to “It is a terminal moral good for X to receive Y”. This latter definition of “deserving” is vacuous because, by that definition, literally every sentient being throughout all time and space “deserves” to live in [what they’d consider] a perfect utopia for as long as they want (yes, even people who do horrible things, even Hitler, even rapists, even Trump, etc.).
In summary, many debates about whether or not “X deserves Y” seem to stem from conflation of instrumental and terminal values. Talking instead about whether or not “X has earned Y” or whether or not “people who do what X did should be [dis]incentivized with consequence Y” removes this confusion.
