Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2003

Publication Title

Nous

Volume

37

Issue

3

First Page

518

Last Page

536

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0068.00449

Abstract

The concept of desert has traditionally played a central role in theories of both distributive and retributive justice. But while desert continues to play a central role in most contemporary theories of retributive justice, it plays little or no role in most contemporary theories of distributive justice. This asymmetric treatment of desert is prima facie strange. If people should have the punishment they deserve, shouldn’t they also have the social benefits they deserve? I first offer an intuitive argument against the asymmetry, then consider and reject four potential justifications of it. I do not claim that the asymmetry cannot be justified—it is possible that a new argument for it will be found. But the justifications I consider are the most plausible available. These considerations should make us highly skeptical of the asymmetry, and lead us to re-examine our views about both distributive and retributive justice.

Download

Share

COinS