Entitlement suggests that an individual has a “right to something”, but this notion is ultimately based on a moral framework by which the sense of entitlement is rationalized. The moral framework of different individuals are always predisposed to come into conflict with each other
A “virtue” under Becky’s idea of morality could be the equivalent of “immorality” under Brad’s idea of morality. The purpose & aims of Becky’s moral framework can differ from the purpose & aims of Brad’s framework. There’s no way to ascertain how or when Becky and Brad’s ideas of morality will diverge. Anything that’s “right” in the eyes of Becky may not necessarily be “right” in the eyes of Brad, and vice versa
Suppose there are two players who competed against each other in a game that had rules, and one of the players cheats their way to victory:
The question of whether the cheater or the fair player “deserved” to win, ultimately depends on your approval of the tactics that were used by either the cheater or the fair player
If you approve of the fair player’s tactics, you would say “the fair player deserved to win”. If you approve of the cheater’s tactics, you would say “the cheating player deserved to win”. It cannot be decided which player deserved to win outside of a prejudiced lens, because the “entitlement to victory” depends ultimately on whether you agree with the method that was used by one of the players to obtain a victory. If you agree with a method that was used by one of the players to win, it doesn’t mean everyone else will. If you would think the fair player deserved to win, it doesn’t mean there aren’t others who would think the cheater deserved to win
In this case, the impartial fact of the matter is that the player who played by the rules was defeated, albeit by an opponent who cheated. The fair player may have been cheated out of a win, but it doesn’t change the fact that the fair player was defeated as result of the contest. If you have a view on which player ought to have won, that view would be based on your personal opinion on what are the acceptable and unacceptable ways to play the game. Plus your opinion may not automatically be shared by everyone else, as someone could disagree with your take on what ways of playing are acceptable or unacceptable
A “virtue” under Becky’s idea of morality could be the equivalent of “immorality” under Brad’s idea of morality. The purpose & aims of Becky’s moral framework can differ from the purpose & aims of Brad’s framework. There’s no way to ascertain how or when Becky and Brad’s ideas of morality will diverge. Anything that’s “right” in the eyes of Becky may not necessarily be “right” in the eyes of Brad, and vice versa
Suppose there are two players who competed against each other in a game that had rules, and one of the players cheats their way to victory:
- The fair player could say “I deserved to win because I didn’t cheat unlike my opponent. Therefore I’m entitled to have a victory although I lost to a cheating opponent”
- The cheating player could say “I deserved to win because I used all the tools at my disposal to reach victory even if it meant breaking the rules. Therefore I’m entitled to victory although I didn’t play fairly”
The question of whether the cheater or the fair player “deserved” to win, ultimately depends on your approval of the tactics that were used by either the cheater or the fair player
If you approve of the fair player’s tactics, you would say “the fair player deserved to win”. If you approve of the cheater’s tactics, you would say “the cheating player deserved to win”. It cannot be decided which player deserved to win outside of a prejudiced lens, because the “entitlement to victory” depends ultimately on whether you agree with the method that was used by one of the players to obtain a victory. If you agree with a method that was used by one of the players to win, it doesn’t mean everyone else will. If you would think the fair player deserved to win, it doesn’t mean there aren’t others who would think the cheater deserved to win
In this case, the impartial fact of the matter is that the player who played by the rules was defeated, albeit by an opponent who cheated. The fair player may have been cheated out of a win, but it doesn’t change the fact that the fair player was defeated as result of the contest. If you have a view on which player ought to have won, that view would be based on your personal opinion on what are the acceptable and unacceptable ways to play the game. Plus your opinion may not automatically be shared by everyone else, as someone could disagree with your take on what ways of playing are acceptable or unacceptable
Last edited:
