f someone else deserves it more if it is just scarce enough. If it is common like water people generally don't question if a person deserve not to go thirsty — TiredThinker

Assuming you are talking about drinking water, water is common? You should talk to people from countries where water is severely commodified. The entire world is heading in that direction.....where people without money to buy water will have to ration it. Water is "common"? Except without water there would be no life?

What does it mean to deserve something? — TiredThinker

You were gifted water for free. That's plenty deserving. One questions if we are deserving of it at all.

Money, happiness, life, praise? — TiredThinker

Insignificant, in contrast to water.

I think a closely related concept are things like human rights/natural rights. What does it mean to be born with “human rights” and who gets to decide what these rights are?
I think traditionally, people (especially from a religious perspective) value life, especially human life, over material things. As a result, the argument is people are “worthy” of life by virtue of being born, as they have immeasurable value to God. Of course, from a secular perspective, this argument can be rejected, and hence secular morality systems like utilitarianism allow the designation of a “value” to human life (be it monetary, etc).
Personally, I think our idea of “deserving” comes down to some sort of transaction. Somebody deserves something because they have either done something for us that we deem it appropriate to “reward” them, or we hope that by rewarding them, we will get something in return in the future.

Deserving/undeserving are simply extensions/corollaries of causality. Say you till the soil, water it, plant high quality corn seeds and stockpiled pesticides. In doing this, you've done everything you possibly can for a good harvest. You then deserve a good yield of corn which is simply another way of saying you cause it and hence you have a right to expect and stake a claim to the corn that'll eventually, ceteris paribus, grow in your fields. In short the effect is the property of the cause.

H

Is there anything we inherently deserve? — TiredThinker

I would say happiness but the concept itself is so abstract that depends on how each person interprets it.

'Deserve,' is a human concept akin to the human concept of justice. I think it has no relevance whatsoever to the natural events which have occurred in the universe in the approximation of around 14 billion years of events since the big bang. 'Deserve' is only relevant to creatures like humans. I think it has been less relevant in human society in the past compared to now. If we continue to progress towards what I and hopefully most decent thinking humans consider a fairer society then the word will become more and more important as a metric. It can, like most other human concepts, be abused by nefarious people for their own purposes or be equally abused to try to support merely misguided viewpoints by those who advocate such standpoints as consensual antinatalism.

Deserve's got nothing to do with it.
~William Munny, in Unforgiven

It isn't about what you do or don't deserve, it is about what you do or don't do.

Desert is not a concept. We have the concept of desert. That does not mean it's a concept.
The fallacy you are committing is to confuse a concept with its content. I know you people like labels, so let's call it the 'total spanner' fallacy.
Here are some instances of it: we have the concept of a table. Therefore tables are concepts. We have the concept of a house. Therefore a house is a concept. We have the concept of a meal. Therefore a meal is a concept. I have the concept of my neighbour. Therefore my neighbour is a concept. And so on.

Concepts are 'of' things. And what they are 'of' is not a concept, with the exception of concepts of concepts.

when we judge that a person deserves something we are not judging that they will be caused to have it. If we were, then the judgement that Roger deserves x but is not going to receive it would be incoherent. (Yet it clearly is not)

Desert is evaluative, meaning that to judge that a person deserves something incorporates a judgement that it would be good if they received it.

Desert belongs to a person. That is, there cannot be a desert of happiness absent a person who deserves the happiness in question. So desert is always someone's desert.
We can also say that if a person deserves something, then it is good if they receive it. (The opposite does not hold, however). And we can note too that if a person does not get what they deserve then this constitutes an injustice.
And we can also note that when it comes to deserving harm, it is only our own actions that can create it. That is, no matter what I do, that is not going to make you deserve harm. We each have a monopoly on making ourselves deserve harm.
And we can also note that there is no necessary connection between desert and moral obligation. That you deserve x does not mean that anyone is obliged to give it to you. It 'can' give rise to such obligations, but there is no essential connection.

Above I have described some of desert's features, not said what it is. What it is in itself is an attitude of God.

How do we determine what we should strive to have for ourselves that isn't selfish (assuming existence itself isn't selfish) and isn't taking from others that are in more need? We seem to do this intuitively, but we never really make deserving objective?

How do we determine what we should strive to have for ourselves that isn't selfish (assuming existence itself isn't selfish) and isn't taking from others that are in more need? We seem to do this intuitively, but we never really make deserving objective? — TiredThinker

These questions seem off topic. The answer is that we consult our reason and the reason of others.

But note, to deserve something is not of a piece with there being an obligation to provide it.

"It is right to give x to Roger" does not mean the same as "Roger deserves x".

The OP was about desert, not moral obligation. That a person deserves something can give rise to there being an obligation to provide it, but someone can deserve something and no one be obliged to provide it (a rapist deserves to be raped, for instance, but it would be wrong to do such a thing) and similarly, we can be obliged to give someone something they do not deserve.

I do not know what you mean by 'objective' in this context. Whether a person deserves something is not a matter that is constitutively determined by us. I can't make you deserve something just by thinking you deserve it.

when we judge that a person deserves something we are not judging that they will be caused to have it. If we were, then the judgement that Roger deserves x but is not going to receive it would be incoherent. (Yet it clearly is not)

Desert is evaluative, meaning that to judge that a person deserves something incorporates a judgement that it would be good if they received it. — Bartricks

I concur! My example-based argument was specific to only one type of deserving/undeserving. Looks as though it can't be generalized.

I don't see that.
For it to be reasonable to expect a certain outcome is not the same as thinking the outcome is deserved. Given how the clouds look I expect it will rain shortly. That does not mean I think rain is deserved.
In your example it is the fact a person has expended some effort that makes them deserve something, not the fact what they have done will likely yield a certain outcome.

I don't see that.
For it to be reasonable to expect a certain outcome is not the same as thinking the outcome is deserved. Given how the clouds look I expect it will rain shortly. That does not mean I think rain is deserved.
In your example it is the fact a person has expended some effort that makes them deserve something, not the fact what they have done will likely yield a certain outcome. — Bartricks

That's it! Effort spent then is exactly what people intuit it to be - an investment - and it goes without saying everyone most expect a return (break even or profit).

Nonetheless, I'm not entirely off the mark if one realizes that effort is just a kind of cause, an effect is anticipated. However, there doesn't seem to be a cause-like consistency to the effect (bad things happen to good peeps and good things happen to bad peeps); to that extent the concepts herein discussed are non-causal.

No. Just no. To deserve something is not the same as it being expected.

:brow:

Again you demonstrate your pedestrian thinking. Deserts to tables are all human labels for constructs natural and built. A table has its own history of development from any flat surface to any modern table design. There is no BS platonic ideal of 'table' or 'desert.' Many deserts contain a large variety of life and oasis etc. People live and procreate in desserts. Do you think a dessert or a table is inherently associated in any way with the word 'deserves?'
I stated that 'deserve' was a human concept not dessert or table.

In your example it is the fact a person has expended some effort that makes them deserve something, not the fact what they have done will likely yield a certain outcome. — Bartricks

Again Mr pedestrian, you make trivial unimportant points. People expend effort which will produce an outcome, who cares if YOU think they deserve a reward or not! You award yourself significance that only exists in your own head. Your thoughts about who deserves what can be completely ignored by everyone just like your BS viewpoints about antinatalism. Does this not demonstrate to you that your personal application of the human concept of 'deserves,' may not influence the outcome of any event AT ALL or else it might have an effect on the outcome of some event. That's as far as it goes.
The OP is a political question imo, its up to humans to organise and establish global human rights.
Do all humans 'deserve' water, food, shelter? YES is the answer imo but only if they enforce it. I don't really care how or why each little armchair philosopher muses about the labels involved. I care much more about ensuring all basic global human rights are established and are permanent and unassailable.

I really don't know what you are talking about.

I really don't know what you are talking about. — Bartricks

I know you don't. It's just another consequence of your inability to think deeper than you currently do. As long as you are not taken too seriously you and your antinatalist confusions will remain harmless.
Just like the sandwich board people with 'the end of the world is nigh' scrawled on their boards and in their psyche. :death: :flower:

Are you paid to think deeply?

If you are then you are way overpaid!

Do you think shallow thinkers are good at detecting deep thinkers?

It's argumentum ad argentum.

Do you think shallow thinkers are good at detecting deep thinkers? — Bartricks

No, you are absolutely awful at it. Don't try to dance with me, you pathetic amateur. It would take you the rest of your life to learn even the basic steps.

So if I am a deep thinker and you a shallow one, you wouldn't notice, yes?

Keep demonstrating your skewed logic deeply dopey. Your clown underclothing is beginning to show through nicely.
Did you hope that I would type an answer that would fall for your little amateur wordplay?
:lol: Don't try your sad little bar....tricks on me you infant.

Well, would you agree that it is unlikely that a professional thinker is a shallow thinker?

I try to understand the person, not their job. Everything you do, and everything you experience influences everything you are. I like the old deep question, 'who are you?'
You could be the most academically qualified ............ ever and still be a vile human being.
You peddle antinatalism so you are not a deep thinker and as long as you advocate for such BS you never will be, no matter what your profession is.
The fact that you just attempted childish wordplay bar..tricks on me shows your sour personality.
You need to think more about who and what you are Mr professional thinker!

As I expected, you are unable to focus on the question.

My question was whether a professional thinker is likely to be a shallow thinker. And the answer is 'no'. They're likely to be a deep thinker.

So, a professional thinker is likely to be a deep thinker. And a shallow thinker is unlikely to be able to detect deep thinking when they encounter it. Hence this.