Does Justice Require That People What They Deserve

Does justice require that people are given what they deserve?

According to Pojman (2006), justice is the constant and perpetual will to give every man his due. This would seem to imply that for justice to be carried out, people must get what they deserve. But there is some debate over what being just entails; to be just is to be fair, but is being fair truly to give people what they deserve? In this essay, I will detail why justice requires that people are given what they deserve through the scope of punishment, reward, and need.

In the case of punishment, justice must be upheld, and to be just, one must be fair. It appears intuitively clear that it would be unjust to punish someone who stole a packet of gum from a grocery store with a death

It seems, in an egalitarian sense, that it cannot be considered just to give to some and not others. On this point, John Stuart Mills asked the question of what criteria one should be judged on when desert comes into question; hard work, or natural talent (Pojman, 2006)? This opens the door for many questions over whether desert based on merit is truly a just act. However, it seems a resolution for this problem can be found in the term ‘natural desert’. Natural desert describes qualities that allow you to deserve something, simply because of who or what you are, such as high intelligence (Pojman, 2006). In the case of one student creating an essay worthy of an a+ grade because they worked hard, and another creating an essay of the same level simply because they possess a high intelligence, the latter problem arises – but Norman (2001) displays that having such inherent abilities that we are born with is merely a matter of ownership. In the same way that someone who owns a car should be able to use it to travel conveniently, someone who is born with high intellect should be able to wield that intellect to their advantage. In this sense, it seems obvious that it is nothing but just to reward natural desert. Further, giving individuals less than what they earned – or, more to the point, deserve – is unjust. Imagine calling a plumber to fix your broken

If desert is based off of individual’s merit and hard work in society, then it would seem to follow that those who are incapable of contributing in such a way would, therefore, be deserving of nothing (Mills, 2004). This is a troubling conclusion indeed. Further, if justice truly is fairness, then it would seem only right that those who need more than others should be given more than others so as to function at a similar level of ease as the rest of society (Norman, 2001). Therefore, it would seem that desert could have no place in justice. However, an important rebuttal is a form of distributive justice known as social desert. Social desert outlines the public value and resources that every individual should be able to acquire in society (Guoqinga, 2016). This includes access to education, public services, and government support. Social desert certainly dictates that disadvantaged people should be given the extra resources they require (Norman, 2001), and is therefore certainly a proponent of justice. Following, distributive justice is undeniably a matter of desert, as it can be considered that those who are disadvantaged or otherwise disabled are so because of what they were born into, or who they are – therefore, this is a matter of natural desert (Guoqinga, 2016), which, following, would detail that society should use the