Against Desert: Mysticism, Ableism, and the Level Playing Field

In the contemporary United States, the richest 1% own 40% of the country's wealth (Piketty 2020). As inequality reaches levels not seen for a hundred years, debates about deservingness and meritocracy rage ever louder. In mainstream society, the idea that some people deserve vastly more wealth than others due to their talent or hard work—as well as the belief that meritocracy is a worthy ideal—is extremely widespread. Indeed, the most common and the most powerful moral defenses of inequality today tend to rely on arguments about desert, such as Greg Mankiw's notion of “just deserts,” from his “Defending the One Percent” (2013). Although ideas of distributive desert remain dominant across mainstream society, political philosophers are much more divided. On one side of the debate are those who insist that desert is a defensible and important component of social justice—such thinkers seek to defend the mainstream belief that the exercise of one's talents and efforts must matter for what one gets in society (Miller 1999; Moriarty 2005, 2018, Mulligan 2018; Olsaretti 2004; Roemer 1998). On the other side are those inspired by Rawls's (1971) radical argument that the entire notion of distributive desert is rotten because human capabilities are inextricably interwoven with arbitrary luck (Levy, 2011; Waller 2011, 2020). In this article, I advance the debate by showing that there are only two fundamental ways in which desert can be defended. One is to claim that it is possible to find a desert basis that is untouched by luck-based advantage. The other is to claim that even if luck-based advantage exists, it does not nullify desert; even if one's talents or efforts or choices are impacted by luck, desert claims can still be warranted. The central argument of this article is that both defenses fail. The first is wrong because it is empirically incorrect; it is mystical and unscientific. The second is wrong because it is unfair and ableist (it is ableist because desert claims legitimize some people having worse lives than others due to bodily factors that are out of their control and arbitrary from a moral point of view). In other words, this article makes two contributions. The first is to show that even though almost everyone today believes in some form of distributive desert (almost everyone makes occasional reference to one's “effort” or “talent” or “good choices” as bases for what someone deserves), they should not. When the concept is analyzed deeply, we see that belief in desert commits one to extremely unattractive views—either mystical unscientific ones, or discriminatory ableist ones. Second, I aim to highlight and emphasize a point that I take to be extremely important, but which is severely underappreciated in the philosophical literature (as well as mainstream political discourse), which is that ideals of desert and meritocracy are inextricably interwoven with ableism. At its heart, desert is an ableist doctrine.1 Much of contemporary life is a competition. This is particularly true, and most consequential, in economic life (at least in market societies), where competition is the bread-and-butter of daily life, and one's social position and status depend in large part on how effectively one competes for jobs, income, and profits. One of the major debates today is the extent to which the vastly different rewards of market competition, and the resultant high levels of inequality characterizing Anglo-American societies, are well deserved (Mankiw 2013; Piketty 2014; Malleson 2023). Critics of meritocracy (e.g., Piketty 2020) typically argue that such inequalities are undeserved because the pervasive inequalities in opportunities and material circumstance undermine desert. They argue, in other words, that the unlevel playing field in contemporary life undermines desert. But this raises a difficult question: What if society were to become more equal and the playing field more fair? What if there really were equal opportunity, so that everyone had access to similar educational opportunities, there was far less class hierarchy, much reduced racism and sexism, and so on? Should we, in this case, embrace desert and meritocracy and affirm that those who are more successful in the market competition rightly deserve their income on the grounds that it is the result not of privilege but of merit—and similarly that the poor deserve their poverty because it is the result not of unfortunate circumstance but their own failures (e.g., Miller 1999; Mulligan 2018)? My argument is no. In a nutshell, my claim is that even if there were a level playing field in terms of class and economic opportunity, individuals would still not deserve their income because the possession of bodily resources and capacities is itself deeply shaped by luck. The playing field of internal capacities, in other words, is inevitably unlevel all the way down, and so the competition that exists between people is unfair. Consider two individuals, Mark and Jada, in a social democratic society with high levels of equal opportunity (i.e., high inheritance taxes, quality public schools, little racism or sexism, and so on). Mark grew up in a loving, stable family, where he was exposed to chess at a very early age and developed an obsession. His family supported his devotion—buying him countless chess books, hiring coaches, taking him to tournaments; he became a chess prodigy by the age of five. He frequently won chess tournaments as a teen, which fueled his ambition and single-mindedness. He entered adulthood as an enthusiastic and optimistic young man, with significant self-confidence, obsessive interest in chess, and to on chess for at a or Mark on to become a in his early of from and On the other side of up in a that is as as but worse in terms of and is frequently and but a and can only and with In from and which to of and that the of economic luck to to see the of luck-based in bodily I that of this are in and society even a due to in family life, and so The point is that bodily resources are a they can one's life to the luck in bodily it is difficult for to in the for As a up a income for The which should is that is and a human life is as and as much moral as that of Mark or other human Mark more than This that society is Mark for the luck of for the luck of Mark is with the material to a and a economic and is to and Jada, on the other is by In the social democratic society we are would not or but would still more than in a from and little and the of to be one of the of that one his in the of more than one one's in The that a the that him to the to his is for his in large part family and social for which he can claim The notion of desert not to to debate in the literature as to what and he to undermine desert of what he I argue that the of Rawls's argument is The first is that desert claims are only if there is a level playing see to of a or in a competition is a where a a or up much more successful than because of and lives the was from which was to or who up a due to family which who was to and so up a for In such rewards are not deserved because the playing field is not and all unfair and and it is this the competition is undermines desert; this is the which the of desert Indeed, the first is the of a competition. there is level playing an is by arbitrary about the competition arbitrary about and educational and so desert is The of a level playing field undermines desert because it is wrong for people to be for arbitrary for arbitrary The that in other words, desert claims that or between what some deserve in or to desert claims are of this The of economic resources as income, jobs, and public is The of a at is a of resources that is the market the to different about how much income one are claims at with only so resources to one income is on the income of everyone The only way to of the claim that a his is by such a as a that of the income of the the a of a to the by As Miller rightly one by way of is what one to In other of to claims are frequently by and the of different all desert claims are is a different and difficult that there is a of desert which is Miller I I take on this and it as an The and of desert developed only at desert. to at the more is important to there are only two possible to the One defend desert by that it is possible to find desert bases which are by luck and arbitrary or one argue that even if there are such that is because can still desert. This the first The argument that there are desert bases untouched by luck by a of (e.g., Moriarty Roemer with the most desert bases “effort” and In I defend that there in a level playing field between human of and and talents and efforts and choices are interwoven with arbitrary luck-based or The of talent is the least is that different people adulthood with very different even if there is high of for or or or chess, others not. all talents to on this but are there or they are not. of become of how hard we In terms of luck, there is little between economic resources and as the luck of economic resources than one's undermines desert, so does the luck of more or less at the that talents are due to the major grounds of what makes some people more than others is that they more Mark not hard to his he not the to his is that some individuals than Should they deserve to is a in that everyone can how much to and so those who to are more this is it is The fundamental is that is not that one's is level playing field in terms of different people very different to and such are with luck and This is so for two the of at is their people of of others not. Mark is and it to and only a of Jada, in is and frequently by people such as those or those with or people very of at their out of in the be would be to that such people of at their as others Second, one's one's to to one's are with that it to for of such as self-confidence, in their the to or and so Indeed, and other successful are in this are with and self-confidence, so that their is and their On the other Jada, very different of their they that from self-confidence, and or from difficult and it hard to for of a and are there is level playing field of The point is that one's to in or or other such all different of we such other from and their of and they are as as other be they to or to the Mark to significant in terms of such But of are for those are human in bodily all the way down, in to This that the of people to the of they and the arbitrary of some and the of is on human are shaped by the of and and so in which are bodily or all of the to the in with some people some In the is and human in their capacities, and the for much of the is arbitrary in the that it is due to factors a it should as that is not a level playing field between what really is or or or other of talent it a that some more of than is fundamental between the talent of choices to of and the talent of playing They are both that some individuals are and some are worse Mark more to than due to all of arbitrary to his and social But so He not to such they were should he be for such it is not that less of so should be that in the of their the of it is or or of the of their and is to of how human and and is to a of is what Waller the to see a of the in the and human 2020). In there is level playing field between human in and is due to the arbitrary luck of and circumstance that one's different people with more or less to or of this is to that individuals are to it is that most people the to and in the point is that they not the capacities in is level playing people vastly more of and resources than people different of for arbitrary due to the luck of one's and social desert is not by the of but by the of a level playing The it is wrong to Mark so much more than is that possession of of other and of such is due to luck. out rewards or on the basis of the of desert unfair. At the of the one can desert or but not is it is to that people by and large are insist that that on their When we desert, we are not we are unfair This desert claims are only if there is a level playing and there is a level playing field between because in their bodily capacities all the way it that desert claims (at least in a common way of desert was by that there really is an of that is by The most common idea was as of we all the At in terms of or or or or are all the we all the or the argument those who such capacities to deserve and deserve is a of such in the from to to to today 2020). the most of this of from the of Roemer The idea by Roemer is that it is possible to the part of Roemer to as one's or of the of social and circumstance that one is not The idea is that we can this by people who from similar social and their are we can the argument that the in must be due to and is the is to a of the of circumstance that the are important for one's in a in who the of arbitrary factors income of of and family or is to individuals a on this is as of were almost the of people with of family income of both with and be of people with of family income of with and so on with as as for we can what by how they to their someone up in to their is to his of is that people different of at their he believes that all human the to of they so to their for this idea is that of a Although we all different belief is that we are to what of to we only a of or all of someone in to the of as someone in and this is the Roemer that in is as of to in a or of to their in as is someone in the who to in a high of up at the of their as much as someone who up at the of a different though the at the of be of someone at the of be of The idea is that in own a is due to own with of at is from that in that all human the to the of Roemer is Although this an to desert it is see we to at two people in the such as and than even though they from similar Roemer that it their different to in a high of was and not But this is to the Roemer is that to choices is by But that is an and a As we in people different to even if they from similar we at the and of individuals, we see that there are of but still very and important between a that a he gets more bodily is worse at of in the less than does and on and on and of this that it is to that and the or of at their all of which are arbitrary from a moral point of they not. the idea that everyone the of at their is it were it would that everyone would be to of their one and of their for the second of their for the and so on in this But that is not possible for to the of that one on a or for a of is itself a of bodily that different people to different This that even to of is not a that all to the but is a human some more of than others due to luck, and as a basis for moral desert. the first with is that it is really a of to that because different people from similar they are They are not. In human from everyone in of ways due to the of factors that shaped so there are as as there are human the only way for Roemer to would be to a different for But of the would as The is that the fundamental of the to circumstance from one's to fail. Roemer to luck from but is and interwoven with luck. What to Roemer Moriarty and is the idea that if we we can the of circumstance to see one's The more we the the and the more we be to out circumstance in to one's or one's or the of see the in the in he the I the that there is a of human common to all people in the to exercise equal of for their a commits Roemer to a belief in and which exists for all such a is his own I a of human The is that we human are by all of and luck. is in of that is the for part of to choices or in by of social and factors and in all of ways that are a really is is a of and The to find a the of circumstance is the for an a it is The second major way that of desert to the of argument developed is to and insist that people can be even if their are by luck, and so even if there is level playing field between (Miller 1999; Mulligan 2018; The with this argument is What desert and Mulligan is that they a that some desert claims must be if the argument all desert it must be But of this is The debate is about desert claims are it is to that some desert claims must be makes the argument the of desert is wrong because desert must be The of is about luck unlevel playing really and others no. can by the In the argument the is one all the of one's argument is is a to but one the we can still be even if not for all In of this become we the of the debate is should individuals deserve rewards for that are on which are due to luck-based and others to But They can only argument is that if we luck, desert (Miller similar But that is it is an to with the status on the other a argument as to luck and unlevel playing argument is that it is unfair for people to be or for of their it is wrong for some to much lives than others because they from the luck-based advantage of a large such are due to luck and arbitrary from a moral point of to that someone less income less to a than someone because less talents and is unfair. Indeed, such a is ableist (i.e., and people on the basis of one's bodily 2013; and is to that people who deserve worse lives than those with as racism is by and people on the basis of their is by and people on the basis of their bodily desert and meritocracy are because they people a social on the basis of bodily that are arbitrary from a moral point of the desert is to in their and I insist that I deserve more rewards than even though my bodily from My point is that who to argue in such a way must be to that they are and ableism. defenses of desert from Miller with the most of distributive Miller that the luck of talents is because talents are interwoven with and and so as as and are desert is to the concept of desert people can deserve only on the basis of so though the depend on luck talent it and (Miller as we at and are inextricably interwoven with luck. Miller is wrong to that and desert; they not. most powerful argument is that are radical and from most should not to arbitrary luck from one's because this would the notion of He out that if we all the of luck that this with (e.g., the luck different capacities to their in first to a of its is that taking the that we can in the way about and so if we to the concept in a form that most of the desert people we to find a basis for desert that is untouched by it is that my argument is but it is not What would society that the of is far the of this article to all the but the of such a society are The first point is that even if society were to claims of moral I it can still of all of is a for all the and that individuals should in of what should be depend on what one is for as well as what one is to and My claim is that we about what people should be we should of about (e.g., what people to and as well as social but we should not desert. way to this is that of should be society would all of that are would to of and people would be to on the or they the would to not be and to of their income who the of the and won their competition would be to the and The for such is that they are in of or social much of social life can to desert. would be the between a society and the status is the extent of economic much inequality should be the central of this article is that income are not the of human capacities, the for a life should be for all people of the choices that they I to this of as The for a as the opportunities to and to social be to This that everyone should be the material to and as a on the grounds of but because they are human is their status as human that grounds their and not the luck of what their to be of at In there are to that inequalities of income and wealth to all of social equal opportunity, and so in terms of should be not everyone can become a those who should be much the and the and in terms of social it well be for society to some income inequality in to (e.g., as a society, we find it to people who or who in with to more is of a difficult and as to how large should My is that income of or be for the of a market but the that today between the and and are for and are for social and so should be society of undeserved economic inequality because of its but it 2023). the would very In of the of for their by in because they it the of of people up due to the aim of a would be and the from (as well as the that in the first a the central should be and a social it be to for but would be as and as as where are with and is the is an The is that a society moral desert would be different I from but it is not at all to The to Miller is to point out that in itself is of belief that we should on to desert because it with is deeply The of is to not defend on the grounds that they are Miller is to that taking luck the idea of a level playing does desert. But the is not to in and that we see the or that the for some does not the is to if we to between and desert, so much the worse for desert. a the that should be to desert of this is the is luck-based advantage What is the for the of luck on can one this is with all of luck and but that the should be or I that there is to this as we to in a society that is in the that economic is not or or on the basis of that are or luck-based advantage is one to defend it the is to a and that is and so He a that is very successful and a One to all of his on an important which he believes his the he a due to in he a him His he significant of his and he is in daily in he is the on his and he is to in a and about a to desert it is and for quality of life to in a from to poverty due to luck. What this is that desert far much of what is important in life to on a is that should not so much more than his and should not so much What for distributive is not luck-based and what is his The of what he should be on the basis of not desert of some inequality in society well be to we of the to one of an a to one's to an to one's a in the the less to and and so a in one's or or or other part to one's those of who are this that at life due to the of the desert must my far less than I worthy of is and that I a worse life than others even though the of my is But is that a position that to In we seen that there are two to those who to moral desert. The first is to insist that there really a level playing such as a to But we seen that this is empirically and a of The second is to that a level playing field between people is people can be even if they are But that is to see and is to luck and to a in how lives are to is for of income or access to or quality a position the belief that arbitrary as the of I would bodily talent and a basis for one's life In I that people on the basis of arbitrary about their and as desert is who defend desert its form of are unfair advantage and The arguments developed the of deeply about and and so not be even if the not to desert I that they become at least more of seen that the of desert a in the one to the other to ableism. are

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.