A moral desert is what you deserve morally for anything you've done. So, for example, if I murder someone, we could believe that I deserve anything horrible to happen to me ethically. Or if I assist someone, I deserve to be compensated. But usually when people use the term "moral desert" they have something more specific in mind.
So, for example, if I steal some money from a bank then I'm responsible for any consequences that may occur (even if I give the money back). But because I have a family I need to provide for them and I can't live off a crime scene so there's no way I could go to jail or get executed for example. At least not without getting out early because of good behavior or something similar. Even though I stole the money, I don't feel like I deserve to go to jail because it would not serve any purpose since I need to find another way to provide for my family.
Now, this does not mean that after stealing the money I became an evil person who doesn't care about others. It just means that I acted wrongly and should not be given legal punishment because it would not serve any real purpose.
As far as I know, the concept of moral desert originates with St. Augustine but it has been used by many other philosophers too.
A 'just desert' is a theory of justice in which a criminal offense is considered as reducing the victim's or community's standing or authority relative to the perpetrator, requiring the offender to be degraded to redress the moral balance. The theory thus assumes that offenders should not be punished more severely than they would if there were no one to punish them.
It is based on three ideas: punishment should fit the crime, give each their due, and deter others from committing similar crimes.
The idea that people should be treated equally under the law is called "legal equality". It is not exactly the same as equal rights because it also includes the concept of responsibility, meaning that everyone who commits an illegal act should pay for it even if they were not the only one involved. Also, some things may prevent someone from enjoying full legal equality such as race, gender, religion, etc.
Those who have authority over others can decide what role they will play in society by how they respond to violations of law. If they accept violence as a means of resolving conflicts, then they are endorsing the use of force as a way out of every dispute. If they prefer peace and diplomacy, then they are giving voice to the belief that criminals deserve justice but not necessarily punishment.
The idea of legal equality has been a major factor in the development of democracies around the world.
It refers to that in one's behavior or character that merits reward or punishment, or to that which is due: "a proper reward or compensation, whether good or ill." Because criminal law is focused with punishment rather than reward, the term "desert" in the context of criminal law usually refers to a well-deserved penalty. The just penalty is the desert for any crime.
In English and Welsh law, there are two methods of sentencing: determinate and indeterminate. With determinate sentences, the court sets a fixed time limit above which the defendant will be released. If the defendant commits another crime before this time has expired, he or she can be re-sentenced to additional time inside.
With indeterminate sentences, on the other hand, the court does not set a fixed time limit for release. Instead, the sentence includes a maximum period allowed for incarceration. If the defendant is not convicted of another crime by the end of the maximum possible sentence, they will be free. However, if the defendant is later convicted of another crime, they can be sent back inside against their will and forced to serve the remainder of their sentence.
Deserts are commonly used in both determinate and indeterminate sentences. In determinate sentences, deserts are factors that determine how long the defendant will be locked up; in indeterminate sentences, they determine how soon the prisoner can be released.
Many people feel that being treated fairly is an issue of justice, fairness, or rightness.
"Desert is a commonplace idea in everyday life." Some views hold that the desert is a key component of justice. However, some views hold that it has little or no influence in justice. The desert theory says that justice is about giving each person what they deserve because everyone has done something wrong to deserve punishment or reward.
According to this view, someone who has not committed any wrongs should not be punished. Instead, we should help them by giving them what they need or want. In other words, they should get rewarded for their good behavior and ignored for their bad behavior. This view implies that justice is about doing good things to good people and bad things to bad people.
The desert theory was most famously stated by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. He said that "justice is equal treatment - that every man should receive his due amount of justice from his fellow men. There are three kinds of justice: legal, equitable, and moral. Legal justice involves punishing those who have violated others' rights, whether by stealing, killing, or acting without consent. Equitable justice involves giving people what they deserve, such as rewarding honesty with money. Moral justice involves doing good things to good people and bad things to bad people.
Aristotle also believed that justice was important for a society to function properly.
There is, however, a significant distinction between the ideas of desert and entitlement. Desert, as used here, is a more strictly moral idea, whereas entitlement is a social or factual one. In this situation, a person may deserve something even though he is not entitled to it.
Nozick believes that everyone who obtains what he has by these ways is ethically entitled to it. Thus, the "entitlement" theory of justice holds that a community's distribution of holdings is equitable if (and only if) everyone in that society is entitled to what he has.
A moral (from the Latin moralis) is a message or lesson to be gained from a narrative or event. The moral might be left to the listener, reader, or spectator to discern for themselves, or it can be expressly stated in the form of a maxim. A moral is a lesson learned through a tale or from real life.
Moral stories often involve a conflict between two values: something that is good (such as helping others), and something that is bad (such as greed). The story's main character needs to decide which value he or she will choose. This choice then determines what happens next in the story.
There are many different types of narratives that could be considered "moral" stories, from fables (with simple plots and clear messages) to historical accounts (with complex plots and ambiguous messages). However, whatever their form, all moral stories share certain common features: they usually conclude with a lesson being learned by the main character; and they often involve a conflict between two values - one good, one bad - that the main character must choose between.
For example, "A Tale of Two Cities" is a narrative poem about two cities in England during the French Revolution. It tells how the poor suffer while the rich get richer. At the end, the main character decides to do something good (help the poor) but ends up suffering too (because he is imprisoned). Thus, the poem shows that even if you do something good, it may not always be rewarded.