RUNNING HEAD : Merit : Why Do We Value It ?Merit : Why Do We Value It ?Name College /University Louis Pojman has stated three different opposing views about merit in terms of the societal and political aspects of philosophical attributes .The first one being influenced by Homeric culture called meritocracy .The second one guided by desert-based concept . The third one is based on free will and responsibility . Meritocracy reveals that how people perceive and individual is dependent on one ‘s achievements and success , and the status or position that one holds in society . This is accounted for regardless of the moral and belief values that one holds . The desert-based system was rooted from the idea of Immanuel Kant , which opposes the Homeric viewpoint of judgment and regard . The worth of a person is dependent on one ‘s intentions and moral values , as opposed to success and wealth that determines the worth of a person in the Homeric context . The third one is a more complex take on merit and desert . The interplay of free will and responsibility is the gauge for an individual ‘s worth . Merits that are granted to people who exude excellence and display quality performance should not at all be awarded to them because one ‘s talents ,abilities , and moral values are influenced by the family , heredity and the environment (Pojman , 1999 )The three aforementioned viewpoints have now become the basis of arguments and debates over the meaning of worth and the basis of merit .At this point , we ask ourselves on which ground do we stand on ? How do we perceive the contributions of other people ? How do we define excellence ? On what grounds should we base the merits granted to other people ? Why are merits valuable to us ? These are just some of the questions we ask ourselves when presented with conflicting ideas about how we should perceive people ‘s contributions and the intentions of their actions , and on what grounds should we base the merits that shall be granted to them .The author has expressed his own opinion about the topic of conversation , and according to him , merits are dependent on desert . This ubiquitous idea is based on the concept that we should deserve what we earn because what we earn is dependent on our intentions and actions . Therefore , those who are righteous and honorable should be merited because they deserve it . On the other hand , those who are vicious should be punished based on the intensity of their actions (Pojman , 1999 ) The balance or symmetry in merit and desert should be the ideal principle that governs people in terms of what they deserve due to their way of thinking , beliefs , and actions . However , this ideal notion of merit and desert does not materialize in the state of our world at present . There is too much injustice in society that the idyllic system of merit and desert , or earning what we deserve , is just an idea that we wish our world should be . This system of…
Photo provided by Flickr
If there are enough Hitler-like people then they can form their own culture with its own morals and anything goes again. Both of these views of ethical relativism seem to be going in circles allowing all behavior as acceptable. Another issue with ethical relativism – whether it is subjective or conventional – is that a person has to determine what is their primary culture. Culture is made up of so many aspects like location, race, gender, religion, sexual status, etc. that a person could be making a moral decision that goes against one part of their culture but is acceptable with another part. Pojman outlines ethical relativism and then discusses moral objectivism as the correct idea. He argues that it only takes one moral principle for all people to show that relativism is false and objectivism is true.
Essay on Louis Pojman Short Summary - 470 Words
Photo provided by Flickr
Louis P. Pojman is a Doctor of Philosophy and is currently a professor of Philosophy at the United States Military Academy. On top of this, Pojman is also a visiting professor at the Birmingham Young University in Utah and a visiting fellow at Oxford University in New York. Apart from the article he had contributed in the book Debating the Death Penalty: should America have the Capital Punishment? The Eperts on Both Sides Make their Best Case which has been edited by Hugo Adam Bedau and Paul G.