Hobhouse22

Luck has no relation to desert. If we use luck as our metric it bears no relation to justice i.e. getting what one is due. Why is it wrong for Lords to rule over peasats, after all, luck has given them their positions so surely its right? I'm not discussing respect to football players and I don't subscribe to the value of hard work or the labour theory of value rather i am a liberal egalitarian who values desert. When I referred to distribution I refer to the method by which wealth is allocated which happens in every society including in laissez faire economies i.e. the market allocates the wealth or so the argument goes.

So does that mean that your answer to the question is yes, as long as there is no fraud.

Would you still say yes in the case of painters and scientists? If someone studies physics enough can they be as good as Einstein or if they practice enough can they be up there with van Gogh? If so, whay do you say that? Is there more to your argument then optimism in man? If it gave me an advantage it would mean an advantage over someone else i.e. someone who did not grow up in such a household. Why should I benefit from something I didn't deserve and they be punished for something they did not deserve i.e. being born in a household which did not value hard work? Who get the money from buying the house? Th person selling it who inevitably is part of the same group of people as the football player i.e. someone benefiting fro an unearned benefit.

Assuming that he really did think it was worth $100,000, does that not mean that his incompetence in failing to evalaute the problem properly saves him from punishment and allows him to keep the money? Alternatively let's say he really think its worth $100,000 because he thinks he's the best plumber around and that's just what he charges. He knows it alot but he thinks he's worth it. He's not incompetent, he's aware he's charging the lady alot and other plumbers would charge her much less. Is he a fraud? Can he still keep the money?

Luck is random and arbitrary. Why should something so random determine someone's life chances? If people value hard work why should we give such respect for a system which rewards people based on luck? What's defensible about luck as the way to distribute wealth? Ultimately its an unearned benefit. Furthermore if a football player has a natrual talent for his game and gets paid millions of dollars for that ability, that has an effect on others e.g. the housing price example given above.

The added information about how she got her wealth etc wasn't initially given because it was not relevant to the question at hand. I only provided it to see if you would come back on those points. So essentally it comes down to what the plumber says, who if he's a fraud would lie to the police anyway and say he really did believe that it was worth $100,000. Is that not far too on the side of the plumber? Why not get the views of other plumbers to see if they agree it was worth $100,000. If so, its' fine. If not, he's a fraud. Why should the plumber get the final say and effectively determine if he's a fraud or not?

If there is no natural talent does that mean if someone practices enough they can be like Michael Jordan or some NFL player? If not, then what explains Michael Jordan's ability, did he just try more than others? Assuming you are correct that talent is solely determined by practice and training, does that mean those who are brought up in families which make their children work hard have an unfair advantage over those children who grow up in households which don't make their children work hard? How much they are paid does it effect me, for example, it effects house prices so making it more difficult for others to get on the housing ladder. Even if it did not affect me that does not mean its not a question of morality. I'm not afected by people being tortured in North Korea, so should I not have a view on that?

No, no and her late husband left her the money. If the plumber lied would it be wrong to charge her what he did? If the plumber says he really did think it needed all that money spent on it would that justify his actions?

Let's say doctors have exaamined her and think she's mentally competent. Thus she has no guardian but she's old, has no relatives and is out of touch with the world, she has no idea about plumbing and is naive. She is far too trusting of other people even strangers.

In our society rap stars and football players are valued, they get paid vast sums of money. Why is this right when it is sheer luck that they have the talent to do those things? I'm sure many work hard at it but there is no doubt natural talent as well. Why should people be rewarded for something they have not earned i.e. their natural talent for a sport, music, acting etc. Even those who do work hard at an activity may well have been bought up in a household which values hard work and thus they are also benefiting from sheer brute luck. Why is this fair? Also isn't it sheer luck that they happen to live in a society which values their particualr talent e.g. football. Again why should they be rewarded so hansomely for being born in the right time, at the right place and with the right talent? Is desert even important?

According to Objectivism, is this morally acceptable? A plumber tells an elderly lady she needs her toilet fixed. It will cost her $100,000. She is old and agrees to pay this. Would this be permissable?