Suchergebnisse

The ledgers of merit and demerit were a type of morality book that achieved sudden and widespread popularity in China during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Consisting of lists of good and bad deeds, each assigned a certain number of merit or demerit points, the ledgers offered the hope of divine reward to users ""good"" enough to accumulate a substantial sum of merits. By examining the uses of the ledgers during the late Ming and early Qing periods, Cynthia Brokaw throws new light on the intellectual and social history of the late imperial era. The ledgers originally functioned as

"People consider desert part of our moral world. It structures how we think about important areas such as love, punishment, and work. This book argues that no one deserves anything. If this is correct, then claims that people deserve general and specific things are false. At the heart of desert is the notion of moral credit or discredit. People deserve good things (credit) when they are good people or do desirable things. These desirable things might be right, good, or virtuous acts. People deserve bad things (discredit) when they are bad people or do undesirable things. On some theories, people deserve credit in general terms. For instance, they deserve a good life. On other theories, people deserve credit in specific terms. For instance, they deserve specific incomes, jobs, punishments, relationships, or reputations. The author's argument against desert rests on three claims: 1. There is no adequate theory of what desert is. 2. Even if there were an adequate theory of what desert is, nothing grounds (justifies) desert. 3. Even if there were an adequate theory of what desert is and something were to ground it, there is no plausible account of what people deserve. Desert Collapses will be of interest to researchers and advanced students working in ethics and political philosophy"--

The public defenses of affirmative action have not convinced the majority of Americans that the policy is necessary and just. The notion that merit and qualifications for academic places and jobs can be judged solely by test scores and grades is seriouslycalled into question by the numerous studies analyzed in Affirmative Action and the Meanings of Merit. These studies show that many affirmative action beneficiaries have succeeded in higher education and various occupations despite not having the required test scores or GPA, therefore exposing reified concepts of merit as intellectually murky

Cover -- Contents -- I. Introduction -- II. Literature Review -- III. Baseline Model -- A. Set-Up -- B. Equilibrium -- C. Limits of Meritocracy -- D. Multiple Prize Levels -- IV. Heterogeneous Contestants -- V. Discrete Number of Contestants -- A. 2-Player Lazear-Rosen Contests -- B. n-Player Tullock Contests -- VI. Conclusion -- References -- Appendix -- A Online Appendix: -- 1. Proofs -- A. Baseline Model -- B. Heterogeneous Contestants -- C. Discrete Number of Contestants -- 2. Allowing for Concave Costs and ɳ[sub(c"/c")] [omitted] [sup(-1)] -- A. Model and Results -- B. Proofs -- Figures -- 1. Marginal Benefit versus Marginal Cost -- 2. Best Response as Function of σ -- 3. Equilibrium as Function of σ -- 4. Locus of Optimal Meritocracy and Number of Prizes -- 5. Example 2 -- 6. Interior Best Responses.

Introduction : getting in -- Winners and losers -- "Great because good" : a brief moral history of merit -- The rhetoric of rising -- Credentialism : the last acceptable prejudice -- Success ethics -- The sorting machine -- Recognizing work -- Conclusion.

"Kariya and Rappleye focus on the Japanese model, looking at the country's educational history and policy shifts. They show how the Japanese experience can inform global approaches to educational reform and policymaking -and how this kind of exploration can reinvigorate a more rigorous discussion of meritocracy, equality, and education. This book is made available as an open-access electronic publication with the generous support of the Suntory Foundation"--

In this book, the author critically explores the idea that we deserve to be praised or rewarded for good behavior and blamed or punished when we act badly, which seems central to everyone's moral deliberation and practices. Simmons considers the implications of his views for distributive justice and personal morality

Our everyday conversations reveal the widespread assumption that positive and negative treatment of others can be justified on the grounds that 'they deserve it'. But what is it exactly to deserve something? In this book, Kevin Kinghorn explores how we came to have this concept and offers an explanation of why people feel so strongly that redress is needed when outcomes are undeserved. Kinghorn probes for that core concern which is common to the range of everyday desert claims people make, ultimately proposing an alternative model of desert which represents a fundamental challenge to the received wisdom on the structure of desert claims. In the end, he argues, our plea for deserved treatment ends up being linked to the universal human concern for a shared narrative, as we seek healthy relationships within a community.