Merit: Why Do We Value It? Essay

Louis Poj piece has stated three different opposing views virtually clean excellence in terms of the societal and political aspects of philosophical attributes. The first unrivaled existence influenced by Homeric culture called meritocracy. The second one guided by depopulate- ground concept. The third one is based on free leave alone and responsibility. Meritocracy reveals that how lot observe and individual is helpless on ones achievements and success, and the situation or position that one holds in society. This is accounted for regardless of the moral and public opinion values that one holds. The devastate-based system was rooted from the idea of Im partuel Kant, which opposes the Homeric rack of judgment and regard. The price of a person is dependent on ones 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 an d responsibility is the gauge for an individuals worth. Merits that be granted to people who exude excellence and display quality performance should not at all be awarded to them because ones talents, abilities, and moral values atomic number 18 influenced by the family, heredity and the environment. (Pojman, 1999)The three aforementioned viewpoints have now stupefy the basis of arguments and debates over the meaning of worth and the basis of merit.At this point, we select ourselves on which ground do we stand on? How do we perceive the contributions of other people? How do we define excellence? On what cubic yard should we base the merits granted to other people? Why argon merits expensive to us? These argon just some of the questions we ask ourselves when presented with conflicting ideas about how we should perceive peoples 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 head of conversation, and agreeto him, merits ar 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 spotless 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 similarly much wickedness 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 injustice and precariousness lead us to depend upon Cosmic justice in strad dle to attain the equilibrium between merit and desert. (Pojman, 1999) This idea of order inspired by Cosmic justice is vindicated by moral truths that were based on the scriptures. Randy Alcorn, who writes for the unfading Perspective Ministries, explains the interplay between actions and rewards by stating evidences from the Holy volume. Alcorn stresses that the scriptures support the concept of balance between merit and desert. Rewards are obtained by doing hot deeds, and immortals judgments are based on the morality and uprightness of mans actions and works on earth. Moreover, these good deeds are the basis for the salvation of man. (Alcorn, 2007)As Alcorn revealed passages from the Holy Bible and interpreted each text in terms of actions, rewards, and punishments, he restated that righteous desert or actions are the things that people do according to desires of God, and these token actions are the ones which deserve rewards. Alcorn continues to discuss about the significan ce of rewards in the scriptural context. Based on the scriptures, rewards that shall be granted to man are dependent on ones capacity to remain faithful to the providential Being. This is because what man chooses to believe and have faith in determine mans destination unremittingly. Righteous works and actions give man eternal life. Moreover, these righteous works and actions determine what man shall receive as a reward from God. (Alcorn, 2007) Straying away from the biblical concept of we deserve what we earn, we are going to shift to the views of Kant which strongly supports the desert-based system of granting merits. check to Kant, deeds are worthy of merit. Moreover, desert through as a moral province is deserving of a reward or a positive appraisal. According to Kant, estimable actions deserve rewards despite the morality or uprightness of an action. This becomes a point of argument between two opposing views of the desert-based system. However, the similarities between Kan ts desert-based system and mans cat valium view about merits and desert do not differ from one another. (Johnson, 1996) The commonality between Kants desert-based system and the viewpoints of the majority of man is grounded on the need for granting merits to an act that was done according to ones duty and responsibilities and the morality and uprightness that comes with it. (Johnson, 1996)Moreover, man would not argue that those who conduct vicious behavior should not be given merit, but on the other hand, be granted punishments that are in equal weight with the negative behavior committed. The evaluation of action, according to Kant is based on the intentions and the results of the particular action. The evaluation of action to the ordinary and common viewpoint of man is based on the morality and uprightness of a certain action. The evaluation of action according to the scriptures is grounded on the righteousness of God as revealed in the Holy Bible.ReferencesAlcorn, R. (2007). Ca n We Really Earn Eternal Rewards? Retrieved April 6, 2008, from Eternal Perspective Ministries. Website http//www.epm.org/articles/earn.htmlJohnson, R. N. (1996). Kants Conception of Merit. Retrieved April 6, 2008, from University of Missouri. Website http//web.missouri.edu/johnsonrn/merit.pdfPojman, L. (1999). Merit Why Do We Value It? Journal of Social Philosophy. Malden Blackwell Publishers