Principle of Just Deserts, Meaning, Constituents, Basis, Criticism

The Principle of Just Deserts means that a person should receive what they deserve based on their actions. If someone does good work or behaves well, they should be rewarded. If someone commits a wrong or crime, they should be punished. The focus is on fairness and responsibility.

Principle of Just Deserts Meaning

• The Principle of Just Deserts says that punishment should match the seriousness of the crime. Serious crimes deserve strict punishment, while minor crimes deserve lighter punishment. It is based on fairness and proportionality.
• The main idea is retribution, which means a wrongdoer morally deserves punishment. The aim is not mainly reform or deterrence, but to give a fair response and restore the balance disturbed by the crime. When someone commits a crime, they take an unfair advantage over law-abiding citizens and punishment removes that advantage.
• Even repeat offenders may deserve stricter punishment, but it must still be proportionate. Overall, the principle promotes fairness, responsibility and trust in the justice system.

Constituents of Desert

The idea of Just Desert has three main parts:

1. Deserver (Who deserves?)
2. Deserved Modes of Treatment (What is deserved?)
3. Bases of Desert (Why is it deserved?)

Deserver of the Desert

The deserver refers to the person, group, or sometimes even an institution that is said to deserve something. For example, a student deserves good marks for writing a good exam, an athlete deserves a medal for winning a competition, and a criminal deserves punishment for breaking the law. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant believed that morally good individuals deserve happiness. Usually, the deserver is a human being, but in some cases even non-human entities, such as historical monuments or ancient cities, are said to deserve protection or preservation.

Deserved Modes of Treatment

This refers to the kind of treatment or outcome that is deserved. It may be positive, such as rewards, promotion, salary, respect, rights, or happiness. It may also be negative, such as punishment, fines, penalties, or criticism. In some situations, the outcome can be neutral, like average marks for average performance. Thus, desert does not always mean giving rewards; it can also involve fair punishment or a balanced response depending on the situation.

Bases of Desert

The basis of desert explains why a person deserves something. It may be based on effort (the hard work put in) or performance (the final result achieved). Sometimes effort and performance do not match, which makes deciding desert complex. Responsibility is also important; a person who commits a wrong knowingly deserves punishment because they are responsible. However, people may also deserve help even when they are not responsible, such as victims of natural disasters. Another factor is time, desert is often based on past actions, but in some cases future potential may also be considered. Together, these bases help determine what is fair and just.

‹ ›

Philosophical Basis

• The Principle of Just Deserts is based on retributive justice, which says people should receive what they morally deserve. Punishment or reward must be fair and proportionate to the action.
• Immanuel Kant supported this view, arguing that punishment is justified because the offender deserves it and must be held morally responsible. Aristotle linked desert to distributive justice, saying benefits like honour and wealth should be given according to merit.
• The principle assumes that individuals are rational and responsible for their choices, so they must face the consequences of their actions.

Criticism

Many philosophers argue that desert is not a simple or fully fair basis of justice. John Rawls says success depends largely on luck, such as talent and family background, so people may not truly deserve their advantages. David Hume points out that it is difficult to correctly judge what someone deserves and that applying it strictly may create practical problems. Libertarians believe justice should focus on protecting individual freedom, not redistributing rewards based on desert. Therefore, desert as a principle of justice faces serious philosophical and practical criticisms.