Would it be wrong for her elementary school to reward her with a prize for getting the highest grades in her class despite the fact her "accomplishment" is due almost entirely (if not entirely) to luck? — czahar

I don't think it would be wrong, pointless maybe but not wrong. The fact that she is a genius and learns easily might be luck, but there is still some effort made in the learning process.

why can't we do the same for the woman's son? — czahar

It is his obligation to go to school, there is no option. And his mother probably knows how many days she had to drag him out of bed to get there.

Winning the lottery is an achievement which is 99.9999999% luck (or chance). The .000000001% part that isn't luck is deciding to buy a lottery ticket. What luck brings 99.9999999% of people who play the lottery is losing.

Some luck was involved in the perfect attendance record--no sickness, no injury--but still, the boy had to make some effort to show up. It sounds like the boy has a rather controlling mother, and maybe she had a lot to do with his perfect attendance record.

Luck, though, is usually not such a controlling factor that an individual (or group) can't screw it up through diligent effort. The gifted student may not have to exert much effort to learn, but she should still be encouraged and rewarded for effort. And so should the other students in the class who don't learn as easily -- which is also a matter of luck, or chance.

I think so, I think that far too much is made out of it, and intelligence only comes with luck too. I get on average twenty hits in six months on Youtube, that`s all I get, there`s no interest in world records that amounts to anything, for each and every thousand hours training in putting up a new physical world record there, and these are world records through my sixties mind. Meanwhile, you can be given millions for guessing numbers and thousands for remembering tunes, all tax free. It is at odds with a natural healthy level of incentive. One only requires non defective instinct to know that I`m right. Most instinct has of course become highly defective in recent times, and this because intelligence has been pushing it out. Intelligence can only direct one so far, it cannot ever replace good instinct.

It's wrong to reward people for any achievement, luck or effort. The only reason cited for the lack of justification for rewarding luck is that it would be 'unfair'. This implies that those who have worked hard to achieve some personal goal are rewarded 'fairly'. In what way would bestowing an award on someone who has achieved high grades through their own hard work be 'fair'. They may be motivated entirely by their own self-interest, studying only to become as wealthy as possible for their own self-indulgence. So what could possibly be the function of such a reward that would qualify for our normal use of the term 'fair'?

Christine Korsgaard for example, outlines how, following Kantian principles, there are forms of moral knowledge which contain both the information and the incentive. To reward 'good' behaviour is to undermine the function of this duality by interfering with the rational self-assessment of behaviour that is required to reach 'good' conclusions. For Kant, one must follow a duty based on the rational assessment of that duty, acting to obtain a reward is not moral behaviour.

It is often said that punishment and reward structures serve to teach children what behaviours are 'good', but the problem with this approach philosophically is that it detaches the motivation to do good from the belief about what is good. If one takes a Humean distinction between a moral belief (that one should attend school as much as possible) and a desire (to satisfy that moral belief). Rewards interfere with this process by creating an unrelated desire (to obtain the reward) leaving the moral belief (that one should attend school as much as possible) hanging without any related incentive.

The act of rewarding good behavior is not as philosophically invective as it is incendiary.
The corollary narrative to that has been one that is often flammable that philosophers expounding on this subject would have at their disposal not just the philosophical argument, but the legal and sociological facts in support of their position.
So what am I talking about? Punishment for bad behavior.

It's wrong to reward people for any achievement, luck or effort. The only reason cited for the lack of justification for rewarding luck is that it would be 'unfair'. This implies that those who have worked hard to achieve some personal goal are rewarded 'fairly'. In what way would bestowing an award on someone who has achieved high grades through their own hard work be 'fair'. They may be motivated entirely by their own self-interest, studying only to become as wealthy as possible for their own self-indulgence. So what could possibly be the function of such a reward that would qualify for our normal use of the term 'fair'? — Pseudonym

These are some strong points. I didn't see the citation you're referring to, though. Was it further in the article?

A possible response to your argument would be that when we talk about fairness, we simply mean playing by the rules. If the rules state that people should be rewarded for hard work, then it would certainly be unfair if people were rewarded for not working hard.

I didn't see the citation you're referring to, though. Was it further in the article? — czahar

I'm characterising the ethic behind the author's responses. I hope I haven't read too much into it, but they frequently make reference to the treatment of other people and expect it to be commensurate with the treatment of their son, hence 'fair'.

A possible response to your argument would be that when we talk about fairness, we simply mean playing by the rules. If the rules state that people should be rewarded for hard work, then it would certainly be unfair if people were rewarded for not working hard. — czahar

I don't think anyone uses fair in this way, otherwise we would be unable to say "these rules aren't fair", which we frequently do.

For Kant, one must follow a duty based on the rational assessment of that duty, acting to obtain a reward is not moral behaviour. — Pseudonym

What does a person do if an award committee gives him an award (even if he it wasn't his intention to receive an award)? Following the Kantian duty, then, he must reject the award.

What does a person do if an award committee gives him an award (even if he it wasn't his intention to receive an award)? Following the Kantian duty, then, he must reject the award. — Caldwell

Yes, I would say so. Universalising the maxim "I should accept any rewards that are offered to me" would certainly create a world where those less morally scrupulous than yourself would start to act motivated by reward rather then duty. Of course you could phrase it as an hypothetical imperative, "if I have not acted solely to achieve the award, then I should collect the award", but I really don't see how that could be universalised.

This is the problem with Kant's ethics, they tend to lead to odd conclusions because he requires that we universalise the maxim presuming the world is made up of rational people, it isn't so the outcome of doing so is never quite as we'd expect. But then Kant wasn't interested in outcomes. As you might tell, I'm not a Kantian, I just though his insight into the fact that moral knowledge contains both the instruction and the incentive was pertinent here.

Personally, I don't see any problem receiving an award, the moral issue is with the people issuing the award, receiving it could be seen simply as an act of kindness, not wanting to reject that which is offered. It's not that rewards should not be used to incentivise moral behaviour, I'm not of the view that morality is dictated by intention, it's that they should not be required. It's difficult to define behaviour as moral if it does not yield a result that clearly increases the well-being of the community, including the moral agent themselves.

A traditional solution is to hold more than one competition. One for the effortless geniuses. That prize will always be won by the girl, unless another effortless genius joins the class, in which case they can battle it out. A different one for the hard-working brainiacs. You could add a third competition for the determined plodders.

One reason for holding a competition is to reward achievement through effort. If people are not going to come anywhere near winning, no matter how hard they try, then it's dispiriting for them. So you create different classes and you can get somewhere in your class. That's why they have under-12's sport, under 16's sport etc, because the best child will always lose against the best adult.

"Unfair" is also the best reason, and luck reward motivation adds to the already overly self orientated nature of most young people, indeed, most people. The balance of giving with receiving is how nurturing should instruct.

I don't think Kant would oblige you to reject the award. He would merely not characterise the motivation for the act (and therefore the act itself) as a moral one. You may make yourself a cup of tea, in Kant's theory, and it is not an example of a moral act. But he's not against people drinking tea.

Is there anything wrong with rewarding people for what they accomplished purely or almost purely by luck? — czahar

So if a person wins the lottery they ought not deserve the payout since they only won through luck?

Rewards are usually in the context of competition (e.g., if you get the reward, there were others who might have gotten it but didn't) which is continually diminishing human relationships all around the world.

What extent does luck involve a communication between autonomous and heternomous systems? Here the child isn't lucky (in the context of a reward given by the heteronomy of the educational facility) because he hasn't gotten sick because in a way, this is a question that belongs to intrinsic, autonomous health, and nothing to do with extrinsic school. It's a mixture of domains that aren't comparable along a number of criteria.

Note: not getting sick is not an accomplishment, but an absence. You can't talk about it in terms of luck anymore than you can talk about being lucky because you have an autonomic nervous system that allows you to live (without having to remember to make your heart beat, etc.). If we want to say we're lucky to have been born...that's different. You make your own luck; though as long as too dependent on others and not self-organized, you may be apt to think you're lucky just because others accept you or give you a trophy.

Reward is not only to be associated with competition. There is so much so many of you simply make up?

Perhaps you're right. Care to elaborate, though. In the example given by the op, it is ostensibly a case of competition: for perfect attendance. E.g. not everyone got perfect attendance, some were made to feel more special than others when given/offered the accolade; perfect attendance merits a reward because it's a competition involving what's merited and what's not. Meritocracy sometimes seems to have sadomasochism elements to it, or it's a source of sadomasochism.

Personally, I don't see any problem receiving an award, the moral issue is with the people issuing the award, receiving it could be seen simply as an act of kindness, not wanting to reject that which is offered. It's not that rewards should not be used to incentivise moral behaviour, I'm not of the view that morality is dictated by intention, it's that they should not be required. — Pseudonym

True. I'd characterize it as 'profiting' from moral acts if the motivation is the prize.

I don't think Kant would oblige you to reject the award. He would merely not characterise the motivation for the act (and therefore the act itself) as a moral one. You may make yourself a cup of tea, in Kant's theory, and it is not an example of a moral act. But he's not against people drinking tea. — Cuthbert

Fair enough. I'd imagine Mill would, though.

Arguably, because accomplishment is strongly rewarded in adult society, then kids in school should get used to that, by similar accomplishment-rewarding in gradeschool.

But maybe not, because rewarding the high-performers, can make some of the other kids resentful about how relatively un-rewarded and un-praised they are. ...which could and often does result in their beating up a kid who's doing better in school.

I've long felt that the achiement-orientation of school is wrong, and unhelpful. Just give kids an opportunity to find out about things that they like, in addition to things that are known to be valuable and useful. Though valuable, useful subjects should be taught, there should be as much latitude as possible within those subjects for students to still study whichever aspect of them they like. Additionally, though, students should have a large percentage of their school and homework time available for subjects entirely of their own choice. A kid who wants to study dinosaurs might later become a paleontologist. It's called an "elective", and it should be available even in elementary school.

A kid who isn't interested in academics, but who loves hot-rod magazines--Why shouldn't he have auto-mechanics available as an elective? Elementary school is too early for that? No, because there could be models of car engines, transparent model engines, and model-engines and model-cars that can be realistically taken apart and put back together, for example. Instruction could be appropriate for age. By the time that kid reaches highschool, he'll be proficient in taking an engine or a car apart, at least as much so as possible from increasingly realistic, increasingly lifesize, models. ...which, by junior high, at least, could be actual engines and cars (with all the necessary safety precautions).

If a 6th or 7th grader is highly proficient in mechanics, and only interested in that, then why shouldn't he have the opportunity to learn to repair small, or relatively small, engines?

Likewise for a kid who is interested in athletics instead of academics. No wonder there's so much negative attitude and negative response from kids who aren't interested in academics. They're dumped into academic classes and made to feel useless and merit-less if they aren't good at it.

For kids who are good at academics, that's good, and they should be encouraged too, but don't make a big deal of it and hold them up as better than the others.

Michael Ossipoff

Why should kids get used to accomplishment being rewarded though it is the incipience of class warfare? What is accomplishment? Money? Fame? More accomplishment warrants more money, right. More attention warrants more reputation?? Rewards, rewards... What if reward seeking were a problem? Inasmuch as it is.

The wedge between winners and losers. Yay!! How meaningful!

Why should kids get used to accomplishment being rewarded — Anthony

At first in my post, I said that rewarding accomplishment would prepare kids for the rewarding of accomplishment in the adult world. But, really, just because that's going to happen to them later doesn't mean that it should be dumped on them in school.

So, in the rest of my post (comprising most of the post), i spoke of letting people study what interests them, what they like. For one thing, it's obvious that kids will study much more attentively if it's something they like and are interested in.

So I think rewards and other coercions are a negative, not a good thing.

So I didn't mean what you thought I meant--I only said it in the short beginning part of the post--and then disowned and renounced it.

though it is the incipience of class warfare?

That was one reason that I gave for why it's wrong, and a mistake and dis-service, to reward and praise some students, and to hold them up to the others as better. ...to divide the students into approved and disapproved kids, winners and losers, high and low. Better and not-as-good.

What I suggested has nothing to do with class. It was only about individual preferences of students.

What is accomplishment? Money? Fame?

If they're going to be faced with that after graduation, that's no reason to impose it on them in school.

It's no reason to impose those regrettable values on the kids' curriculum.

Michael Ossipoff

The wedge between winners and losers. Yay!! How meaningful! — Anthony

That's what I'm arguing against

Michael Ossipoff.

That was one reason that I gave for why it's wrong, and a mistake and dis-service, to reward and praise some students, and to hold them up to the others as better. ...to divide the students into approved and disapproved kids, winners and losers, high and low. Better and not-as-good.

What I suggested has nothing to do with class. It was only about individual preferences of students. — Michael Ossipoff

Then we agree. Sorry if I took a part of your post for the whole. I do think it is a class and maybe a caste issue though. What is it that rewards people most in the market society where people are insinuated with foolish and radical ideas of marketing themselves along side objects (products)? Money. In the market society, if you don't have near perfect attendance, you'll be fired and not have your monetary reward. I've subbed for a teacher who had a poster up on the home room wall that depicted a mansion with a 5 car garage out on a promontory overlooking the ocean with some idiotic subscript about success. It gave me a despondent feeling.

One of the peculiar mores of our times: compulsory education. I grew up in the country a half mile away from the ruins of a one room school house. It was finally demolished about 15 years ago. Economic radicalization of the human being seems to be getting worse instead of better. There's really no need to go to school if you want to be uneducated. There's been many very bright people who were "uneducated." Uneducated doesn't mean the person is stupid or lacking knowledge or anything in particular. The way things are going, everyone is becoming exactly the same (due to factors like compulsory education, technic determinism, and consumerism, where people are buying the same mass produced products). If more people were autodidacts and artisans, each person would know a little something different than others. But then no one would be marketable and interchangeable and the sacred economy would collapse.

Is there anything wrong with rewarding people for what they accomplished purely or almost purely by luck? — czahar

An award is given for something, an achievement. In achieving something, always somewhere down the line there is a luck factor involved, if only the abscence of bad luck. A nobel price winning scientists probably would never have won a nobel prize if his train was late during his very first job application for instance. If luck cannot be a factor in giving awards than we probably should abolish the institution of awards, something we can choose to do. On the other hand not accepting an award because it is based on luck is incoherent. Since luck plays a part in any general award it is no reason for rejecting that specific award, unless the disclaimer is made that all awards are rejected.

In fact contrary to pseudonym's line, I would take Cuthbert's line, but even radicalise it. We have a duty to accept the award, because universilising the maxim "awards should not be accepted when there is an element of luck involved" leads to a contraditction: there is always an element of luck involved so the whole institution of awards is eradicated. Now we could argue whether that is a good idea. A second Kantian question would be: can we will to live in a world without the institution of awards? We can but it would make the world a more barren place. Do we want that? Since the insitution of awards exists from time immemorial and seemingly in every society I argue we have an imperfect duty to accept awards at least some of the time. The mother did not live up to duty, despite her intentions.

In determinism, everything is essentially luck.

But to be able to reward, we need to measure the amount of work that led up to the achievement. If you win the lottery, that's just pure luck based on the right time and place. But putting ten years of work into something, giving up pleasures and comforting sloth in order to reach a goal and then reach it, it is essentially also a form of luck by looking at the deterministic reasons for ending up at that goal, the genetics, the family you were born into, upbringing, the ability to go to school, get higher education, the makeup of your psychology/IQ, how that is utilized, being in the right time and place to be able to start working towards that goal etc. and then reach that goal.

The difference between the lottery ticket and that achievement is the level of work, the level of suffering in order to reach the goal. So in a sense, being rewarded should be measured according to how much suffering you went through. Suffering, not in the way of torture-like pain, hardship and so on (but in cases of them, yes), but how much you choose to give up in order to reach a goal. Even though that choice is determined, as always in determinism, it's the closest I can think of to measure when and when not to be awarded and praised for an achievement.

Example: Someone gives up having a family, gives up the pleasures of a balanced stable life (according to common norms), in order to invent something that makes a difference to the world. That is an achievement worth praise.
But if someone doesn't put effort into something, ends up with little to no effort outside of just normal evolution of events over that course of time, that is not something worthy of praise.

How about viewing the prize as recognition instead of reward?

Achievements, whether through luck or hard work, need to be put in the limelight so that we have good role models to emulate. As you know, these days luck is not our side in terms of finding good exemplars. Every person, even great persons in history seems to be irreparably flawed. There is no one on whom some dirt can't be found. Children, under these circumstances, are like ships without compasses. It's a sad situation.

Given this is so, we need to find and bring to the forefront anyone who is performing well in any field. Even if luck played a major part in a person's achievement, s/he becomes a beacon for young developing minds.

Therefore, even if luck doesn't justify reward, if it achieves something it needs to be recognized.

The parent was right in declining the prize but this came at a price - losing a good role model.

Luck plays very little to nothing when it comes to one's achievements. Which means anyone who achieves anything should be rewarded and celebrated.

Re school attendance prizes - I think they encourage the spreading of germs frankly.