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

I understand your frustration that you cant lead me or direct or manipulate our exchange.
That's why you are reduced to trying to answer your own questions the way the man in your mirror craves them to be answered. The way that allows you to get the jollies you so crave. They are delusional.
The best you could do is learn, as a man does.

This is a philosophy forum. Do some.

Grow up bar..tricks, take off your big awkward clown clothes and learn to debate like a man.
Stop preaching your antinatalist BS.

Well that wasn't philosophy. Try again.

Aw didums! Ask your mommy or a philosopher you like, for a hug, even a virtual philosopher might help!

Either do some philosophy or become a lot funnier. One or the other.

I suspect you do create more laughter than I bar..tricks, especially when you try to type philosophy or antinatalism.

Good one Oscar.

Look, you're derailing this thread. It's on moral desert. I said some things about moral desert - true things. Such as that it is always a person's, that we can't affect another person's desert of harm, and that an injustice is what we have if a person does not get what they deserve.

So far as I can tell you've not engaged with any of this.

Look, you're derailing this thread. — Bartricks

Don't throw stones in the water if you can't handle it when you get swapped by my returned waves.
Anyone who wants to post on this thread will do so. This thread is not derailed as it's about the issue of what people deserve and what they are worthy of. Your insulting and arrogant manner towards others is worthy of my disdain and you deserve to be exposed as the misanthrope you are.

Er, you're the one throwing stones and I'm the wave. You can see that by noting that I said some things about desert and you didn't, you just I was a pedestrian thinker.
Now, once again, address the OP. Say something about desert. Not about me. About desert. And if I disagree with you and explain to you why your view is wrong, respond to the criticism rather than say something about me. See? Learn to handle criticism.

Say something about desert. — Bartricks

Deserts contain life!

and that an injustice is what we have if a person does not get what they deserve. — Bartricks

I have been delivering what you deserve for a while now.

if I disagree with you and explain to you why your view is wrong, respond to the criticism rather than say anything about me. See? — Bartricks

If you stick to doing that when you respond to others then I will comply with your request.
If you continue to be the obnoxious p**** you can be towards others then you will keep getting what you deserve in return bar..tricks! Learn little bar..tricks be a big boy now.

Deserts contain life! — universeness

I don't know what that means.

I have been delivering what you deserve for a while now. — universeness

I think that's an attempt at wit. It's hard to tell.

If you stick to doing that when you respond to others then I will comply with your request.
I you continue to be the obnoxious p**** you can be towards others then you will keep getting what you deserve in return bar..tricks! Learn little bar..tricks be a big boy now. — universeness

Oh dear, D for effort. Again, try and engage with the topic.

The word is related to justice, revenge, blame, punishment and many topics central to moral philosophy, also "moral desert". In the English language, the word "desert" with this meaning tends to be a rather uncommon word colloquially; it is almost exclusively used in the phrase "just deserts" (e.g. "Although she was not at first arrested for the crime, she later on received her just deserts."). The phrase "just desserts" is a pun on this original term and is often confused as the correct spelling of the word.

But real deserts contain life and life persists and procreates and reproduces despite your dimwitted protestations.

Oh dear, D for effort. Again, try and engage with the topic. — Bartricks

Do you feel qualified to grade others bar..tricks? Being such a shallow thinker yourself!

Just for you @Bartricks I copied and pasted the extract below from wiki:

One of the most controversial rejections of the concept of desert was made by the political philosopher John Rawls. Rawls, writing in the mid to late twentieth century, claimed that a person cannot claim credit for being born with greater natural endowments (such as superior intelligence or athletic abilities), as it is purely the result of the "natural lottery". Therefore, that person does not morally deserve the fruits of his or her talents and/or efforts, such as a good job or a high salary. However, Rawls was careful to explain that, even though he dismissed the concept of moral Desert, people can still legitimately expect to receive the benefits of their efforts and/or talents. The distinction here lies between Desert and, in Rawls' own words, "Legitimate Expectations".

Rawls' remarks about natural endowments provoked an often-referred response by Robert Nozick. Nozick claimed that to treat peoples' natural talents as collective assets is to contradict the very basis of the deontological liberalism Rawls wishes to defend, i.e. respect for the individual and the distinction between persons. Nozick argued that Rawls' suggestion that not only natural talents but also virtues of character are undeserved aspects of ourselves for which we cannot take credit, "can succeed in blocking the introduction of a person's autonomous choices and actions (and their results) only by attributing everything noteworthy about the person completely to certain sorts of 'external' factors. So denigrating a person's autonomy and prime responsibility for his actions is a risky line to take for a theory that otherwise wishes to buttress the dignity and self-respect of autonomous beings."

Nozick's critique has been interpreted in different ways. The conventional understanding of it is as a libertarian assessment of procedural justice, which maintains that while it might be true that people's actions are wholly or partly determined by factors that are morally arbitrary, this is irrelevant to assignments of distributive shares. Individuals are self-owners with inviolable rights in their bodies and talents, and they have the freedom to take advantage of these regardless of whether the self-owned properties are theirs for reasons that are morally arbitrary or not.

Others have suggested that Rawls has entirely mistaken the very logic of desert. If justice is getting what one is due, then the basis of desert must ultimately be undeserved. However, desert is a relational concept that expresses a relationship between a deserved and a basis of desert. It simply destroys the character of desert to demand, as Rawls does, that the basis of desert be itself deserved. For example, if we say a man deserves some primary good because of some quality or action "Y", we can always ask, as Rawls does, "but does he deserve 'Y'?" and so on. We then either have an infinite regress of bases of desert or arrive at some basis, some beginning point, which the individual cannot claim to have deserved or to be responsible for, but only to have or have been given by nature. After all, no human being exists causa sui; even to reduce the basis of claims to the very narrow one of life itself reveals Rawls' difficulty: surely no one can "deserve" or "claim credit for" their own existence.

To demand, as Rawls does, that no just claim rest on an undeserved base simply means that we must cease speaking about justice, for on the basis of that demand there can never be any just claims - not even for equality. Rawls' analysis of justice rests on a notion of desert which violates the concept of desert and therefore does not provide a more precise notion of the bases of desert, but rather dissolves entirely the concept of desert and with it justice. The many debates over justice in political life and in philosophy concern the actual substantive question of what are the proper bases of desert. That is, underlying every conception of justice must be a claim of right, a positive claim of desert. The great failing of Rawls' argument is that he provides no substantive basis for a claim right or desert; but this failing is, paradoxically, also the source of the great appeal or excitement about Rawls' theory. His approach seems to avoid the difficulties of the traditional debates and the value questions they necessarily raise and yet seems to enable him to discuss normative questions such as justice.

Do you really think there is anything here that supports antinatalism or is any such connection merely just conflations based on your shallow thinking?

Some relevant ideas:

1. Karma (ethics), as mentioned previously deserving/undeserving is about causation, moral in this case.

2. Justice/Vengeance (Iustitia/Erinyes). Getting one's just desserts (related to karma but is specific to evil and its alleged reciprocal consequences)

3. Inverse consequences (sometimes the effect of an action is opposite of what's the norm, which is to say that what we're dealing with here is quasi/pseudo-causation; if you disagree some metaphysics is in order)

4. Reciprocity/tit for tat/quid pro quo (game theory; action = reaction, vide Newton's 3^rd law)

5. Miracles (the :halo: must break the rule/law action = reaction i.e. they must back down, make the sacrifice, compromise in a confrontation and they must refuse/not expect rewards/appreciations for their good deeds; the :naughty: if you notice don't violate the aforementioned law as we're, on the whole, wicked/twisted. Evil doesn't do miracles).

A product is either delegated to you because it ought be yours by matter of chance's favour or you gained it due to you passing whatever test it was, at the time.

You either deserve it and don't have it or deserved it and do have it.

Deserve means, if there is a moderator, a product is rightly yours (even though you may not get what's rightly yours), or, if there is no moderator, you are in 'pole position' for it's rights.

It seems to be a past and present tense word without a future tense...

First, Rawls does not reject desert but appeals to it. If you reject that a person deserves x, you are not rejecting that x exists. If I deny that my house is green I am not thereby disallowing the existence of green.
Second, wikipedia is written by enthusiastic amateurs. So it's a bit like citing a post from someone here. It's almost certainly going to be shot through with clumsy mistakes. As it is in this case: Rawls does not reject desert, indeed his whole case appeals to it. Maybe read him, not wikipedia pages on him (although don't actually do that as he's an overrated twit and a dull read).
Third, make an argument.

You bore me now bar..tricks! You are a lost child.

I just found a wiki page that said universes lack intelligence. Shall I paste the entire page?

I don't care what you do bar..tricks, you are just white noise to me now.

With the abundance of resources at our commission I think we all deserve to have met our most fundamental biological needs, which include but not limited to: Food, Water, Shelter, Clothes, Education. That deserving requires serving. We can't get along, can't met biological needs, without some kind of service in an economy.

I think it's a mostly modern scientific view of human biology and human economy that allows us to think of ourselves as organisms with fundamental needs. Without which, we would ignorantly go about catering to consumption drives, and in that world-view, in that view of human nature, we'd be less likely to concur that human beings deserve anything.

That isn't how it is. We now know what is required for survival and well-being, so its left to us, as it has been, to work towards abundance and productivity.

More than ever before, we all deserve a right to THRIVE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-s

Here we are lacking a full definition of "deserving" but using the natural intuitive definition regarding one's personal opinion on ethics; Nihilistically speaking, it doesn't matter who gets food, all possible future paths are equal. by classic human morality from modern society, we might see some people being "worthy" of something, and others who have committed a crime for example, be undeserving of said things. by consequentialism, the person who would make the most people happy by getting the food, gets the food.

Desert is not a concept. We have the concept of desert. That does not mean it's a concept. — Bartricks

This deserves a savage beating! :brow:

You think it does mean it's a concept? Jeez. Below the level.