Desert, Effort and Equality

Milne, Heather

doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.1986.tb00423.x

Cited by 48 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This information is likely to be less reliable than that available within a given firm to employees and to depend more on perceptions of agency and institutional structure (Kulik and Ambrose 1992). Agency concerns include the degree to which the entrepreneur perceives others are receiving the appropriate economic benefit for the effort they expend (Sadurski 1985a, b;Milne 1986), the value they create (Miller 1976(Miller , 1989Riley 1989), and/or the costs they incur (Dick 1975;Lamont 1997). In contrast, issues of institutional structure refer to the degree to which entrepreneurs perceive the system as supportive of distributive justice according to the equity rule (Marshall et al 1999).…”

Section: Theory Developmentmentioning

confidence: 98%

Distributive justice, corruption, and entrepreneurial behavior

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article introduces equity theory to the economic growth literature to examine whether a relationship exists between perceptions of distributive justice and the productivity of entrepreneurial behavior. Using survey responses from 317 entrepreneurs in India, we find that productive entrepreneurship is positively related to distributive justice perceptions but negatively related to perceptions that corruption is pervasive. In contrast, nonproductive forms of entrepreneurship are negatively related to distributive justice but positively related to corruption. Unexpectedly, the findings also show that corruption mediates the relationship between distributive justice and legal entrepreneurial behavior while distributive justice mediates the relationship between corruption and illegal entrepreneurial behavior. We conclude with a discussion of the study's findings and their implications for entrepreneurship and economic growth.

show abstract

Section: Theory Developmentmentioning

confidence: 98%

Distributive justice, corruption, and entrepreneurial behavior

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, although disputed elsewhere ( Douglas, 2014 ), it is often said that enhancement makes achievements “too easy” or is a way of avoiding effort ( Cole-Turner, 2000 ; Kass, 2003 ). If true, this might support Undeservingness , since exerting effort to overcome difficulties is often thought to confer deservingness ( Sadurski, 1985 ; Milne, 1986 ; Sorensen, 2010 ).…”

Section: Philosophical Rationalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why is Cognitive Enhancement Deemed Unacceptable? The Role of Fairness, Deservingness, and Hollow Achievements

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We ask why pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE) is generally deemed morally unacceptable by lay people. Our approach to this question has two core elements. First, we employ an interdisciplinary perspective, using philosophical rationales as base for generating psychological models. Second, by testing these models we investigate how different normative judgments on PCE are related to each other. Based on an analysis of the relevant philosophical literature, we derive two psychological models that can potentially explain the judgment that PCE is unacceptable: the “Unfairness-Undeservingness Model” and the “Hollowness-Undeservingness Model.” The Unfairness-Undeservingness Model holds that people judge PCE to be unacceptable because they take it to produce unfairness and to undermine the degree to which PCE-users deserve reward. The Hollowness-Undeservingness Model assumes that people judge PCE to be unacceptable because they find achievements realized while using PCE hollow and undeserved. We empirically test both models against each other using a regression-based approach. When trying to predict judgments regarding the unacceptability of PCE using judgments regarding unfairness, hollowness, and undeservingness, we found that unfairness judgments were the only significant predictor of the perceived unacceptability of PCE, explaining about 36% of variance. As neither hollowness nor undeservingness had explanatory power above and beyond unfairness, the Unfairness-Undeservingness Model proved superior to the Hollowness-Undeservingness Model. This finding also has implications for the Unfairness-Undeservingness Model itself: either a more parsimonious single-factor “Fairness Model” should replace the Unfairness-Undeservingness-Model or fairness fully mediates the relationship between undeservingness and unacceptability. Both explanations imply that participants deemed PCE unacceptable because they judged it to be unfair. We conclude that concerns about unfairness play a crucial role in the subjective unacceptability of PCE and discuss the implications of our approach for the further investigation of the psychology of PCE.

show abstract

“…18 Similarly, many supporters of the moral importance of desert would be willing to pay attention also to other considerations in order to avoid counterexamples, such as when a distribution of goods only according to desert would undermine social stability or basic needs, or drain future resources. [25][26][27][28] Thus, whereas certain 'pure' theories may in themselves be unable to support the sustainability principle, the considerations that they are often combined with in order to increase plausibility (eg, concern for social stability or priority to the worst off) include the sort of future orientation which may support the importance of sustainable resource allocation.…”

Section: Objections To Sustainability In Healthcare Resource Allocationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainability principle for the ethics of healthcare resource allocation

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose a principle of sustainability to complement established principles used for justifying healthcare resource allocation. We argue that the application of established principles of equal treatment, need, prognosis and cost-effectiveness gives rise to what we call negative dynamics: a gradual depletion of the value possible to generate through healthcare. These principles should therefore be complemented by a sustainability principle, making the prospect of negative dynamics a further factor to consider, and possibly outweigh considerations highlighted by the other principles. We demonstrate how this principle may take different forms, and show that a commitment to sustainability is supported by considerations internal to the ethical principles already guiding healthcare resource allocation. We also consider two objections. The first of these, we argue, is either based on implausible assumptions or begs the question, whereas the second can be adequately accommodated by the principle we propose.

show abstract

Desert, Effort and Equality

Cited by 48 publications

References 0 publications

Distributive justice, corruption, and entrepreneurial behavior

Distributive justice, corruption, and entrepreneurial behavior

Why is Cognitive Enhancement Deemed Unacceptable? The Role of Fairness, Deservingness, and Hollow Achievements

Sustainability principle for the ethics of healthcare resource allocation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About