Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Luck and reward

Rate this topic


Hobhouse22

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

There's no such thing as natural talent, as all talent is something you acquire through practice and training. In sports, a person must exercise and eat properly. Whether or not the football players are being paid an amount that you think is worth their value doesn't matter. It does not affect you.

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?

Life isn't fair, nor does it need to be. Still, due to volition, just because you happen to be born some place doesn't mean you will automatically succeed or fail in life.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no such thing as natural talent, as all talent is something you acquire through practice and training. In sports, a person must exercise and eat properly. Whether or not the football players are being paid an amount that you think is worth their value doesn't matter. It does not affect you.

Life isn't fair, nor does it need to be. Still, due to volition, just because you happen to be born some place doesn't mean you will automatically succeed or fail in life.

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?

Edited by Hobhouse22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we assume it is luck, why is it not right for them to be freely paid for it?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is no natural talent does that mean if someone practices enough they can be like Michael Jordan or some NFL player?

If they start early enough, yes. Genetics would really only apply to sports, but even then, remaining fit requires effort. There is also technique to take into consideration which can only be perfected with practice. Read my comment on volition in my previous post for why motivations or rules set by your family will not necessarily give you an advantage. And if it did give you an advantage, so what?

Also, NFL players buying super-mansions may affect housing prices, but who do you think gets money for selling those houses? There is more to an economy than just the immediate and short-term buyer/seller relationship.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they start early enough, yes. Genetics would really only apply to sports, but even then, remaining fit requires effort. There is also technique to take into consideration which can only be perfected with practice. Read my comment on volition in my previous post for why motivations or rules set by your family will not necessarily give you an advantage. And if it did give you an advantage, so what?

Also, NFL players buying super-mansions may affect housing prices, but who do you think gets money for selling those houses? There is more to an economy than just the immediate and short-term buyer/seller relationship.

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.

Edited by Hobhouse22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luck is random and arbitrary. Why should something so random determine someone's life chances?
Why shouldn't it? Are you supposing some standard for judging "should"?
If people value hard work why should we give such respect for a system which rewards people based on luck?
You are not forced to give respect to football players or rap singers, so if someone has been telling you that you have a moral obligation to pay money to such people, you need to think more carefully how you spend your money. I assume that you're one of those people who value hard work, that is, you believe that man's proper means of existing is through the suffering of physical toil -- there has to be suffering, so a physically strong man must work even harder than a physically weak man, in order to reach the desired level of "hard work" that you think should be compensated. I, personally, do not accept that premise, and I do not value "hard work". Instead, I value (or not) the objective facts of the particular product, and I give no consideration to how much the creator labored to make it.

In a free society, you have the right to buy "fair trade" products, local products, commune-created products or whatever kind of creator-related considerations are important to you. I will focus on the thing that I'm buying.

What's defensible about luck as the way to distribute wealth?
There is no distributing wealth in a free society. Only in a slave society does that concept make any sense. The idea that a defense is needed is what is in need of a defense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

A few points:

1. If we define a "person", his body, mind, nerves, genes etc. are a part of that person. They are not separate from "him". No one gave it to him, they are who he is. Is it luck that he is that way? Categorically no, he wouldn't be him if any of those things weren't that way. A lucky occurrence is some good thing that happens to a person independently of himself and his actions (for instance winning the lottery is luck).

2. It is important to clarify which relevant categories of people are doing what, as far as it concerns sports in a capitalist society:

a. The sports stars themselves, voluntarily (often indirectly, through sport clubs) provide a service to sports fans.

b. The sports fans are voluntarily agreeing to pay for that service.

c. The important point to make: People who belong to neither category are not involved. They neither reward sports stars, nor do they profit from their work.

d. The government makes sure that the voluntary interaction between sports stars and sports fans is not threatened by third parties, or by any fraud from the two sides.

Now tell me, is my rundown of what occurs incomplete or inexact? If not, is there anything wrong with what any of the specific actors in the society I described are doing, and do any of them have the right to demand something more from each other?

3. Regarding your question "Why is it right that sports stars are rich and famous?": It is open to debate whether it is right in the wider, moral context. But is is always, 100% a political right for anyone who can earn money (or do anything, as a matter of fact) without the use of force, to do so.

So, it is right that we have a society in which sports stars and sports fans are allowed to interact on a voluntary basis, and that we have a government which protects that right from potential aggressors. That is the proper role of government, in a moral society - that is the type of justice the government should provide.

Once we do agree that we all have the right to act as we see fit, as long as we don't initiate force against others (in other words, that the government's job is to enforce individual rights, not morality in general), then we can talk about which of our voluntary decisions are moral, and which aren't.

We can for instance discuss whether it is moral for a person to continue to be a Yankees fan, even though the organization is built around buying off players raised by other clubs, and thus artificially driving up players' salaries in the MLB (instead of relying on the more traditional strategy of raising your own player in the farm system). I wouldn't say this (because I am a huge Yankees fan), but we could say it is immoral to be a Yankees fan, while at the same time fully supporting people's right to be Yankees fans, and the Yankees right to make all that money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why shouldn't it? Are you supposing some standard for judging "should"?You are not forced to give respect to football players or rap singers, so if someone has been telling you that you have a moral obligation to pay money to such people, you need to think more carefully how you spend your money. I assume that you're one of those people who value hard work, that is, you believe that man's proper means of existing is through the suffering of physical toil -- there has to be suffering, so a physically strong man must work even harder than a physically weak man, in order to reach the desired level of "hard work" that you think should be compensated. I, personally, do not accept that premise, and I do not value "hard work". Instead, I value (or not) the objective facts of the particular product, and I give no consideration to how much the creator labored to make it.

In a free society, you have the right to buy "fair trade" products, local products, commune-created products or whatever kind of creator-related considerations are important to you. I will focus on the thing that I'm buying.There is no distributing wealth in a free society. Only in a slave society does that concept make any sense. The idea that a defense is needed is what is in need of a defense.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few points:

1. If we define a "person", his body, mind, nerves, genes etc. are a part of that person. They are not separate from "him". No one gave it to him, they are who he is. Is it luck that he is that way? Categorically no, he wouldn't be him if any of those things weren't that way. A lucky occurrence is some good thing that happens to a person independently of himself and his actions (for instance winning the lottery is luck).

But those things his body, mind etc, are shaped by society, friends, family etc. It is to an extent luck that they are shaped in a certain way.

2. It is important to clarify which relevant categories of people are doing what, as far as it concerns sports in a capitalist society:

a. The sports stars themselves, voluntarily (often indirectly, through sport clubs) provide a service to sports fans.

b. The sports fans are voluntarily agreeing to pay for that service.

c. The important point to make: People who belong to neither category are not involved. They neither reward sports stars, nor do they profit from their work.

d. The government makes sure that the voluntary interaction between sports stars and sports fans is not threatened by third parties, or by any fraud from the two sides.

Now tell me, is my rundown of what occurs incomplete or inexact? If not, is there anything wrong with what any of the specific actors in the society I described are doing, and do any of them have the right to demand something more from each other?

The fans pay but to waht extent are they really choosing if consumerist society and all they have known has shaped their minds and given them such a love for sport. Peer pressure and advertising suggest its not solely voluntary.

I think others are involved. When the sport stars get rich it does have an effect on others, from housing prices to how others feel about themselves.

Why should the sports stars not be forced to compensate the rest of us for taking advantage of living in a society which values what he does? After all its sheer good luck that he benefits from that and is not caused by him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
This is applicable only to a bizarre hypothetical, where by random draw a billionaire bestows on some peasant (or industrialist) a million dollars. In that case, the reward is undeserved, since the recipient did nothing to cause it. In all of the cases you have proposed, the recipient of the wealth has done something. They have created something, and they offer it in exchange for things of value that others have created. It is irrelevant (in fact, meaningless) whether "luck" played some role in the producer's reward.
Why is it wrong for Lords to rule over peasats, after all, luck has given them their positions so surely its right?
I assume you're familiar with the Objectivist ethics, so I'll just say that that was a lame attempt and you know better.
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.
I have no idea what that really means. Are you saying that everyone should just be given a populational-proportional part of the wealth of the Earth?
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.
In a free society, wealth is not allocated. That is a concept of state-controlled economy. In a free society, wealth is created and exchanged by producers, if they wish to create and exchange and according to their individual standards for creating or not creating, exchanging or not exchanging.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods have been honing their skills since childhood, practicing much more than their peers and becoming the best. I read an article about how Michael Jordan specifically had a "love of the game" clause put into all of his contracts which specified something to the effect that he could practice as many hours as he wished. When he was starting out, he was known to be at the gym pre-dawn before the doors opened. That's not luck. That's hard work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

It is not the business of society to determine the "distribution" of wealth. Wealth is not a static quantity waiting for a committee to divvy it up. Wealth is created, and the free market is simply the result of allowing those who create wealth to own what they have created. It is not a "system" consciously designed to reward anyone. Thinking of it as a system at all is misleading. Football stars make so much money because people choose to pay them that much, because of the extent that those people value viewing the exhibition of their talents. Arguing that they make "too much" money is arguing that honest, hardworking people who watch football are somehow wrong in how much they love watching football, and it is our moral duty to make sure that they spend the money on other people instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fans pay but to waht extent are they really choosing if consumerist society and all they have known has shaped their minds and given them such a love for sport. Peer pressure and advertising suggest its not solely voluntary.

Voluntary in your mind means absolutely independent of any outside influences? How would that even be possible? It is from our contact with the outside world that we come to understand all the concepts involved in making any decision. Outside influences exist for every choice we make, but that is an entirely different issue from the term "voluntary." You are perilously close to denying free will here.

Why should the sports stars not be forced to compensate the rest of us for taking advantage of living in a society which values what he does? After all its sheer good luck that he benefits from that and is not caused by him.

There is no "society" or "system" of central decision making which is choosing how much these people are paid. Their salary is entirely composed of others' voluntary choices to pay them. You can only blame the system when such a system actually exists, as under communism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hobhouse, you sound remarkably like James Taggard. Do you feel people who have more than you owe you something? If someone gets an inheritance and you don't, do you feel that person's "luck" obligates him to share with you? Exactly where are you coming from? Oh, and, could you please watch your spelling a bit? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

"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?"

Hobhouse22, innate talent does not exist. It is very deterministic to think that some individuals are borne with innate abilities, and also too, I don't suggest that you ever try to compliment a skilled individual by commenting on how they are blessed and or born talented. It is a direct insult to the skilled artisan, sports player,etc. By saying that they are able to achieve high skill through innate, inborn talent you are undercutting and undermining all the hard work that the individual undertook to arrive at their current skill level. Remember, people are born with their slate unwritten.

Individuals of great skill are self-made, NOT born.

Edited by brianleepainter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had first wanted to address your ideas on "talent", and now I'd like to talk about morality.

One of the great things about capitalism is that every individual, in this case artists(both of the visual and musical arts), have the

choice to try and pursue their area of skill and make a profit in their chosen field. There will artists that produce objectively good work

that are then able to gain wealth as well as "artists" that make objectively horrid work that are then able to gain wealth due to the

bankrupt morality of individuals that sanction the artist's work,and ultimately the artist himself.

Do I love to see the achievement of great artists? I sure do! Do I like to see mediocrity being enshrined and lowering the standards of

the arts? Fuck no. I see the sanction of shit on a daily basis, but more importantly and unequaled is the sight of achievement that I do see.

If I may give an example: I work at a retail store that sells a few degrading, anti-life, gangster themed cd's. There is a market for music

that is of this nature, so it sells. One of my duties at Best Buy is to alphabetize these cd's, and I do feel disgusted every time I look

at the products, and I certainly don't enjoy seeing them sell as opposed to other works of music, but I make sure to remind myself that

these disgusting musicians don't matter.

I regularly view works of art at galleries, and I find it disgusting to see "abstract paintings" that try to render floating abstractions

to be classified as art, and on display for customers to purchase. To me, these "abstract paintings" are just placeholders, wall space

waiting for the good stuff to be represented.

Anyways, remember that to try and legislate morality will ultimately prevent beauty, but most importantly it would infringe on individual rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hobhouse, you sound remarkably like James Taggard. Do you feel people who have more than you owe you something? If someone gets an inheritance and you don't, do you feel that person's "luck" obligates him to share with you? Exactly where are you coming from? Oh, and, could you please watch your spelling a bit? Thanks.

I noticed he had some Rawls influence as well, especially identifying himself as a "liberal egalitarian."

Incidentally, Hobhouse, do you believe that free will exists at all? That might be a good starting point before we discuss justice.

Edited by ttime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had first wanted to address your ideas on "talent", and now I'd like to talk about morality.

One of the great things about capitalism is that every individual, in this case artists(both of the visual and musical arts), have the

choice to try and pursue their area of skill and make a profit in their chosen field. There will artists that produce objectively good work

that are then able to gain wealth as well as "artists" that make objectively horrid work that are then able to gain wealth due to the

bankrupt morality of individuals that sanction the artist's work,and ultimately the artist himself.

Do I love to see the achievement of great artists? I sure do! Do I like to see mediocrity being enshrined and lowering the standards of

the arts? Fuck no. I see the sanction of shit on a daily basis, but more importantly and unequaled is the sight of achievement that I do see.

If I may give an example: I work at a retail store that sells a few degrading, anti-life, gangster themed cd's. There is a market for music

that is of this nature, so it sells. One of my duties at Best Buy is to alphabetize these cd's, and I do feel disgusted every time I look

at the products, and I certainly don't enjoy seeing them sell as opposed to other works of music, but I make sure to remind myself that

these disgusting musicians don't matter.

I regularly view works of art at galleries, and I find it disgusting to see "abstract paintings" that try to render floating abstractions

to be classified as art, and on display for customers to purchase. To me, these "abstract paintings" are just placeholders, wall space

waiting for the good stuff to be represented.

Anyways, remember that to try and legislate morality will ultimately prevent beauty, but most importantly it would infringe on individual rights.

Brianlee, I (and probably most people) agree with you on things like gansta rap, etc. However, instead of being "disgusted," might it not be better to be grateful that we live in a country where artists are able to produce whatever they want, just as the audience has a right NOT to listen or watch. Would you rather be in Weimar Germany, cold-war Russia, China, N. Korea, etc. where government goons and censors determine and approve each and every piece of appropriate art.

If you think about, you might feel better the next time you alphabetize some stupid heavy metal and rap "artist." As long as they are allowed to exist, so are the artist that give you pleasure! Ain'T that great!

Edited by claire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

John Rawls, is that you?

Why should the sports stars not be forced to compensate the rest of us for taking advantage of living in a society which values what he does? After all its sheer good luck that he benefits from that and is not caused by him.

I have a better idea, lets actively handicap all "gifted" athletes. Cut off a few toes maybe? Thatll knock 'em down a peg. While were at it, how about forced lobotomies on those "lucky" scientists, consequently we'll soon be back in the stone age and everyone will be equal!

j..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brianlee, I (and probably most people) agree with you on things like gansta rap, etc. However, instead of being "disgusted," might it not be better to be grateful that we live in a country where artists are able to produce whatever they want, just as the audience has a right NOT to listen or watch. Would you rather be in Weimar Germany, cold-war Russia, China, N. Korea, etc. where government goons and censors determine and approve each and every piece of appropriate art.

If you think about, you might feel better the next time you alphabetize some stupid heavy metal and rap "artist." As long as they are allowed to exist, so are the artist that give you pleasure! Ain'T that great!

Yes claire, I might not always agree with the person in question(the gansta "artist" for example) but I will agree that they should be able to produce their product.

Perhaps this quote is of use"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Anyways, I tried to cover the issue of free speech by ending my post with "Remember that to try and legislate morality will ultimately prevent beauty, but most importantly it would infringe on individual rights."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...