1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:02,439 Welcome to the Deep Dive, your shortcut to being 2 00:00:02,439 --> 00:00:05,440 truly well -informed. Today we're tackling a 3 00:00:05,440 --> 00:00:08,460 concept that's, well, fundamental in ethics but 4 00:00:08,460 --> 00:00:12,589 often feels abstract. Desert. What you deserve. 5 00:00:13,439 --> 00:00:15,240 And we're not just talking about it, we're actually 6 00:00:15,240 --> 00:00:17,239 going to give it shape. Literally. I mean, this 7 00:00:17,239 --> 00:00:18,800 idea of desert, it shapes everything, right? 8 00:00:18,879 --> 00:00:21,980 Criminal justice, resource allocation. But philosophical 9 00:00:21,980 --> 00:00:25,120 discussions can get a bit murky. So our source 10 00:00:25,120 --> 00:00:27,870 material today... offers something pretty amazing, 11 00:00:27,969 --> 00:00:30,230 a philosophical framework that uses geometry, 12 00:00:30,350 --> 00:00:32,750 graphs, slopes, peaks, you name it, to model 13 00:00:32,750 --> 00:00:35,289 moral value itself. Our mission, to take these 14 00:00:35,289 --> 00:00:37,909 abstract gut feelings about fairness and turn 15 00:00:37,909 --> 00:00:39,310 them into something visible, something almost 16 00:00:39,310 --> 00:00:41,789 quantifiable. We want to understand what you 17 00:00:41,789 --> 00:00:44,509 deserve, not just intuitively, but maybe even 18 00:00:44,509 --> 00:00:47,210 mathematically, and see how these geometric models 19 00:00:47,210 --> 00:00:49,890 actually guide applied ethics in the real world. 20 00:00:50,219 --> 00:00:52,020 It really is a fascinating approach. You know, 21 00:00:52,039 --> 00:00:54,200 growing graphs in moral philosophy isn't exactly 22 00:00:54,200 --> 00:00:57,060 common practice, but it's incredibly clarifying. 23 00:00:57,340 --> 00:01:00,200 By demanding this kind of rigorous structure 24 00:01:00,200 --> 00:01:04,159 for concepts like virtue or suffering, the geometry 25 00:01:04,159 --> 00:01:07,599 gives us a really perspicuous way, as the source 26 00:01:07,599 --> 00:01:10,200 puts it, to see the differences between moral 27 00:01:10,200 --> 00:01:12,859 viewpoints, differences that often get lost in 28 00:01:12,859 --> 00:01:15,950 just, well, It turns disagreements into something 29 00:01:15,950 --> 00:01:17,989 you can actually point to on a chart. Exactly. 30 00:01:18,170 --> 00:01:19,950 It makes the complex visible. So, yeah, let's 31 00:01:19,950 --> 00:01:21,810 dive into the structure. OK, first things first. 32 00:01:21,890 --> 00:01:24,510 Let's get our terms straight. When we talk about 33 00:01:24,510 --> 00:01:27,250 moral desert for the next, say, half hour, what 34 00:01:27,250 --> 00:01:30,590 exactly are we zeroing in on? Right. So at its 35 00:01:30,590 --> 00:01:34,510 core, moral desert is tied directly to an individual's 36 00:01:34,510 --> 00:01:37,439 moral worth. Think of it as their overall level 37 00:01:37,439 --> 00:01:40,640 of virtue or vice. And that worth becomes the 38 00:01:40,640 --> 00:01:42,819 basis for determining the outcomes they should 39 00:01:42,819 --> 00:01:45,079 receive. Basically, the better someone is morally 40 00:01:45,079 --> 00:01:47,099 speeding, the more they deserve to be, well, 41 00:01:47,200 --> 00:01:49,760 better off. Better off, meaning like happier 42 00:01:49,760 --> 00:01:51,980 or... It could mean several things. Higher well 43 00:01:51,980 --> 00:01:54,180 -being is the most common one. Yeah, like happiness. 44 00:01:54,319 --> 00:01:56,900 But it could also be things like praise, admiration, 45 00:01:57,340 --> 00:01:59,579 maybe even resources, depending on the context. 46 00:01:59,859 --> 00:02:02,780 Got it. So it's not just a feeling. It's a claim 47 00:02:02,780 --> 00:02:05,200 about... how things ought to be arranged for 48 00:02:05,200 --> 00:02:07,840 that person a moral claim precisely and that 49 00:02:07,840 --> 00:02:10,780 leads straight into the really fundamental value 50 00:02:10,780 --> 00:02:14,680 claim here the idea that it's an intrinsically 51 00:02:14,680 --> 00:02:17,639 good thing morally speaking when people actually 52 00:02:17,639 --> 00:02:20,180 get what they deserve intrinsically good meaning 53 00:02:20,180 --> 00:02:23,360 good in itself not just because it leads to something 54 00:02:23,360 --> 00:02:26,520 else exactly a world where desert is satisfied 55 00:02:26,520 --> 00:02:29,490 is just well better from this moral standpoint, 56 00:02:29,629 --> 00:02:32,110 even if nothing else changes. The value is in 57 00:02:32,110 --> 00:02:34,849 the matching of outcome to desert, period. That 58 00:02:34,849 --> 00:02:37,330 distinction is important. Intrinsic versus instrumental 59 00:02:37,330 --> 00:02:40,250 value. Okay, so where does this moral worth come 60 00:02:40,250 --> 00:02:42,710 from? Is it just adding up good deeds and bad 61 00:02:42,710 --> 00:02:44,250 deeds? Yeah. Or is there some kind of starting 62 00:02:44,250 --> 00:02:46,879 point? Yeah. Traditionally, it's heavily based 63 00:02:46,879 --> 00:02:49,340 on virtue and vice, your actions, your intentions, 64 00:02:49,460 --> 00:02:51,139 that sort of thing. That's the primary driver. 65 00:02:51,500 --> 00:02:53,240 However, the framework we're exploring today 66 00:02:53,240 --> 00:02:56,340 highlights a really compelling alternative view, 67 00:02:56,460 --> 00:02:59,199 one that avoids starting everyone off at zero, 68 00:02:59,379 --> 00:03:01,219 morally speaking. What's wrong with starting 69 00:03:01,219 --> 00:03:03,759 at zero? Well, think about it. If you start at 70 00:03:03,759 --> 00:03:07,280 zero, you have to actively do good things just 71 00:03:07,280 --> 00:03:09,840 to become someone who deserves anything positive 72 00:03:09,840 --> 00:03:11,819 at all. Right. You'd have to earn your way into 73 00:03:11,819 --> 00:03:14,919 deservingness. Exactly. The alternative suggests 74 00:03:14,919 --> 00:03:17,259 that everyone starts with a sort of positive 75 00:03:17,259 --> 00:03:20,419 baseline of desert. You have some claim to well 76 00:03:20,419 --> 00:03:22,939 -being simply because you're a person. Ah, okay. 77 00:03:23,060 --> 00:03:25,939 So personhood itself grants some level of desert. 78 00:03:26,159 --> 00:03:29,240 That's the idea. And it really shifts the moral 79 00:03:29,240 --> 00:03:32,139 calculus, you know? Virtue and vice still matter. 80 00:03:32,180 --> 00:03:34,460 They absolutely adjust that level up or down, 81 00:03:34,539 --> 00:03:36,939 but they don't define the entire basis of your 82 00:03:36,939 --> 00:03:39,400 desert. So even someone who acts quite badly. 83 00:03:39,520 --> 00:03:42,000 Even the least virtuous individual, according 84 00:03:42,000 --> 00:03:45,180 to this view, still retains some minimal positive 85 00:03:45,180 --> 00:03:47,960 claim to well -being just by virtue of being 86 00:03:47,960 --> 00:03:50,180 human. And that becomes really critical when 87 00:03:50,180 --> 00:03:51,800 we start talking about whether anyone deserves 88 00:03:51,800 --> 00:03:53,960 to suffer. Which brings up a practical point. 89 00:03:54,319 --> 00:03:57,280 When we talk about someone's overall level of 90 00:03:57,280 --> 00:04:00,219 virtue, are we thinking about like last Tuesday 91 00:04:00,219 --> 00:04:03,909 or their whole life? Good question. For the kind 92 00:04:03,909 --> 00:04:06,270 of deep philosophical modeling we're doing here, 93 00:04:06,370 --> 00:04:08,870 especially with this geometry, it tends to look 94 00:04:08,870 --> 00:04:11,189 at the bigger picture. We're generally assessing 95 00:04:11,189 --> 00:04:13,849 desert based on the person's status overall across 96 00:04:13,849 --> 00:04:16,410 their entire lifetime. The holistic view. Right. 97 00:04:16,490 --> 00:04:18,870 It tries to capture their fundamental moral character, 98 00:04:19,009 --> 00:04:21,870 not just the snapshot in time. So, you know, 99 00:04:21,870 --> 00:04:23,910 a terrible person who has a change of heart late 100 00:04:23,910 --> 00:04:26,449 in life, their past wickedness is still factored 101 00:04:26,449 --> 00:04:28,949 in and vice versa for a good person who falls 102 00:04:28,949 --> 00:04:32,410 from grace. OK, so this idea of a potential. 103 00:04:32,939 --> 00:04:36,120 baseline of desert, maybe even for the worst 104 00:04:36,120 --> 00:04:39,079 among us, seems to lead us right into a major 105 00:04:39,079 --> 00:04:42,100 fault line in moral philosophy, the clash between 106 00:04:42,100 --> 00:04:45,199 what the source calls moderates and retributivists. 107 00:04:45,379 --> 00:04:47,680 Absolutely. And this clash really centers on 108 00:04:47,680 --> 00:04:51,220 one key issue, suffering. How so? Well, the moderate 109 00:04:51,220 --> 00:04:53,139 view basically insists that no one deserves to 110 00:04:53,139 --> 00:04:55,480 suffer, period, no matter how terrible their 111 00:04:55,480 --> 00:04:57,519 actions or character might be. Even the absolute 112 00:04:57,519 --> 00:05:00,800 worst. Even them. Now, moderates aren't naive. 113 00:05:01,240 --> 00:05:04,100 They absolutely recognize different degrees of 114 00:05:04,100 --> 00:05:07,319 badness, of culpability. They might say the value 115 00:05:07,319 --> 00:05:10,379 of helping a very wicked person is heavily discounted. 116 00:05:10,860 --> 00:05:13,019 Maybe the discount rate gets really close to 117 00:05:13,019 --> 00:05:15,660 100%. But it never quite hits it. Never hits 118 00:05:15,660 --> 00:05:18,660 it. For the moderate, providing aid to anyone, 119 00:05:18,920 --> 00:05:21,899 even the most culpable person imaginable, still 120 00:05:21,899 --> 00:05:23,980 makes the world, from the standpoint of desert, 121 00:05:24,199 --> 00:05:27,029 a slightly better place. There's always some 122 00:05:27,029 --> 00:05:29,790 positive value in increasing well -being, rooted 123 00:05:29,790 --> 00:05:32,069 perhaps in that personhood baseline we talked 124 00:05:32,069 --> 00:05:35,490 about. So a moderate would say helping a serial 125 00:05:35,490 --> 00:05:38,430 killer feel a bit happier is still technically 126 00:05:38,430 --> 00:05:41,910 an intrinsically good thing, just maybe not a 127 00:05:41,910 --> 00:05:43,689 very good thing compared to helping a saint. 128 00:05:43,829 --> 00:05:45,689 That's the logical conclusion of the moderate 129 00:05:45,689 --> 00:05:47,430 view, yes. It might be incredibly inefficient 130 00:05:47,430 --> 00:05:50,490 morally, but it's not intrinsically bad. Now 131 00:05:50,490 --> 00:05:52,850 contrast that sharply with a retributivist view. 132 00:05:53,589 --> 00:05:55,629 Retributivists do accept that some people can 133 00:05:55,629 --> 00:05:57,870 be so vicious, so culpable, that they genuinely 134 00:05:57,870 --> 00:06:00,370 do deserve to suffer. They often reject that 135 00:06:00,370 --> 00:06:02,930 universal positive baseline. So for them, suffering 136 00:06:02,930 --> 00:06:05,550 isn't always bad. From the perspective of desert, 137 00:06:05,750 --> 00:06:08,790 no. They believe that if someone is bad enough, 138 00:06:08,949 --> 00:06:11,350 providing them aid increasing their well -being 139 00:06:11,350 --> 00:06:15,009 actually has a bad aspect morally. Why? Because 140 00:06:15,009 --> 00:06:16,610 it means they're doing better than they deserve. 141 00:06:16,930 --> 00:06:19,579 Wow. Okay, that's a huge difference. Yeah. The 142 00:06:19,579 --> 00:06:21,519 rich beauty of this isn't just saying helping 143 00:06:21,519 --> 00:06:23,879 the bad guy is a low priority. They're saying 144 00:06:23,879 --> 00:06:26,540 it can actively make the universe worse from 145 00:06:26,540 --> 00:06:29,319 a justice perspective. Precisely. It introduces 146 00:06:29,319 --> 00:06:32,910 a negative moral value. Helping them might increase 147 00:06:32,910 --> 00:06:35,949 overall happiness, maybe, but from the specific 148 00:06:35,949 --> 00:06:38,610 viewpoint of desert satisfaction, it's a minus. 149 00:06:38,970 --> 00:06:41,769 It implies that deserved suffering can actually 150 00:06:41,769 --> 00:06:44,490 be an intrinsic moral good. That's stark. It 151 00:06:44,490 --> 00:06:46,410 is. It's a fundamental disagreement about the 152 00:06:46,410 --> 00:06:48,769 structure of moral value. Now, it's important 153 00:06:48,769 --> 00:06:51,269 to add a qualifier here for our deep dive. Most 154 00:06:51,269 --> 00:06:54,189 retributivists are what philosophers call pluralists. 155 00:06:54,329 --> 00:06:56,629 Meaning? Meaning they think there's more than 156 00:06:56,629 --> 00:06:59,089 one kind of fundamental value. So they might 157 00:06:59,089 --> 00:07:01,519 say well -being itself is good. So helping a 158 00:07:01,519 --> 00:07:03,860 vicious person is good in the sense that it increases 159 00:07:03,860 --> 00:07:06,500 well -being, but it's simultaneously bad in the 160 00:07:06,500 --> 00:07:08,220 sense that it violates desert. Okay, so it's 161 00:07:08,220 --> 00:07:10,920 a conflict of values for them. Exactly. But for 162 00:07:10,920 --> 00:07:13,079 the purpose of understanding this geometric framework, 163 00:07:13,339 --> 00:07:15,360 we're going to try and isolate just the value 164 00:07:15,360 --> 00:07:17,819 of desert alone. We'll set aside the overall 165 00:07:17,819 --> 00:07:21,120 what should we do, all things considered. Question 166 00:07:21,120 --> 00:07:23,699 for a moment. This focus lets us see the pure 167 00:07:23,699 --> 00:07:26,680 structure of desert claims laid bare by the geometry. 168 00:07:27,139 --> 00:07:29,519 Right, let's get to the graphs. Yeah. We're taking 169 00:07:29,519 --> 00:07:31,680 these heavy moral claims and putting them onto 170 00:07:31,680 --> 00:07:35,420 an XY axis. What exactly are we plotting and 171 00:07:35,420 --> 00:07:38,279 why is this geometrical move so helpful? Well, 172 00:07:38,339 --> 00:07:40,459 the beauty of graphs really is that they force 173 00:07:40,459 --> 00:07:42,779 you to be precise. No more hand waving. You have 174 00:07:42,779 --> 00:07:45,639 to define your axis, define your slopes. It pushes 175 00:07:45,639 --> 00:07:48,439 vague intuitions into concrete shapes. It turns 176 00:07:48,439 --> 00:07:51,160 these moral puzzles into, well, geometry problems. 177 00:07:51,279 --> 00:07:53,639 Okay, so lay out the axis for us. Right. The 178 00:07:53,639 --> 00:07:56,060 x -axis, the horizontal one, is pretty straightforward. 179 00:07:56,240 --> 00:07:58,399 It represents the person's level of well -being. 180 00:07:58,560 --> 00:08:00,660 Like happiness or suffering. Exactly. We can 181 00:08:00,660 --> 00:08:03,279 quantify it. Positive numbers mean lives that 182 00:08:03,279 --> 00:08:05,779 are, you know, worth living. Negative numbers 183 00:08:05,779 --> 00:08:08,480 represent lives not worth living states of suffering. 184 00:08:08,879 --> 00:08:10,699 The mirror might be a life that's neither good 185 00:08:10,699 --> 00:08:13,240 nor bad. OK, that makes sense. Well, being along 186 00:08:13,240 --> 00:08:15,579 the bottom. What about the vertical axis, the 187 00:08:15,579 --> 00:08:18,160 y -axis? That seems like the really novel part. 188 00:08:18,339 --> 00:08:21,220 It absolutely is. The y -axis represents goodness 189 00:08:21,220 --> 00:08:24,220 from the standpoint of desert. Think of it as 190 00:08:24,220 --> 00:08:27,860 intrinsic moral value specifically related to 191 00:08:27,860 --> 00:08:31,600 justice or desert. Whoa. So. Higher up on the 192 00:08:31,600 --> 00:08:35,399 graph means morally better. Morally better in 193 00:08:35,399 --> 00:08:38,240 terms of desert being satisfied, yes. The y -axis 194 00:08:38,240 --> 00:08:40,820 is our direct measure of how much moral good 195 00:08:40,820 --> 00:08:43,299 is achieved when people get what they're due, 196 00:08:43,460 --> 00:08:45,600 whether that's happiness for the virtuous or 197 00:08:45,600 --> 00:08:47,879 something else for the vicious, depending on 198 00:08:47,879 --> 00:08:50,179 your view. So we're literally plotting welfare 199 00:08:50,179 --> 00:08:53,539 against moral value. Okay, let's see the shape. 200 00:08:53,720 --> 00:08:55,879 Now let's zoom in on the graph for a single individual. 201 00:08:56,139 --> 00:08:58,639 The characteristic shape the source uses is the 202 00:08:58,639 --> 00:09:00,960 mountain shape. Every person gets their own mountain. 203 00:09:01,080 --> 00:09:03,120 A mountain shape. What does that tell us right 204 00:09:03,120 --> 00:09:05,419 away? It tells us there's an optimal point. For 205 00:09:05,419 --> 00:09:07,860 every single person, there's one specific level 206 00:09:07,860 --> 00:09:10,120 of well -being that is best from the standpoint 207 00:09:10,120 --> 00:09:12,759 of desert. That's the peak of the mountain. Exactly. 208 00:09:13,580 --> 00:09:16,779 The x -coordinate of that peak marks the precise 209 00:09:16,779 --> 00:09:19,620 level of well -being that person absolutely deserves. 210 00:09:19,799 --> 00:09:21,659 That's their target. And the mountain shape itself 211 00:09:21,659 --> 00:09:24,289 means... If you're not at the peak, things are 212 00:09:24,289 --> 00:09:27,210 worse off, morally speaking. That's the key insight. 213 00:09:27,309 --> 00:09:30,149 If you are below the peak level of well -being, 214 00:09:30,190 --> 00:09:33,529 say, a virtuous person who deserves happiness 215 00:09:33,529 --> 00:09:36,950 but is suffering, you're on the slope going down 216 00:09:36,950 --> 00:09:40,230 and to the left, the western slope. That's clearly 217 00:09:40,230 --> 00:09:43,049 a bad state of affairs. The why for you is lower 218 00:09:43,049 --> 00:09:45,549 than the peak. Okay, that makes sense. Suffering 219 00:09:45,549 --> 00:09:47,389 when you deserve well -being is bad. But what 220 00:09:47,389 --> 00:09:48,980 about the other side? Right. The mountain slopes 221 00:09:48,980 --> 00:09:51,559 down on the other side, too. If that same virtuous 222 00:09:51,559 --> 00:09:53,980 person gets more well -being than their absolute 223 00:09:53,980 --> 00:09:56,860 desert dictates, maybe they win the lottery twice 224 00:09:56,860 --> 00:09:59,279 when they only deserved one win. The graph goes 225 00:09:59,279 --> 00:10:01,879 down. And to the right, the eastern slope. So 226 00:10:01,879 --> 00:10:04,480 getting too much is also intrinsically bad from 227 00:10:04,480 --> 00:10:06,460 a desert perspective. According to this model, 228 00:10:06,559 --> 00:10:09,240 yes. There's a loss in moral value compared to 229 00:10:09,240 --> 00:10:11,500 the peak. Now, there's a subtle but important 230 00:10:11,500 --> 00:10:13,720 detail here about the steepness of those slopes. 231 00:10:14,240 --> 00:10:16,139 The model generally suggests that the western 232 00:10:16,139 --> 00:10:18,700 slope, the suffering side, is typically stupor 233 00:10:18,700 --> 00:10:20,419 than the eastern slope, the side of getting too 234 00:10:20,419 --> 00:10:22,879 much. Why steeper on the suffering side? What's 235 00:10:22,879 --> 00:10:25,740 the moral idea there? It reflects a common intuition. 236 00:10:26,320 --> 00:10:29,000 It's generally seen as a worse moral offense, 237 00:10:29,279 --> 00:10:31,919 a bigger violation of desert, to let a deserving 238 00:10:31,919 --> 00:10:34,860 person suffer, a big drop down the steep western 239 00:10:34,860 --> 00:10:37,240 slope, than it is to give them a bit more than 240 00:10:37,240 --> 00:10:39,419 they strictly deserve, a smaller drop down the 241 00:10:39,419 --> 00:10:42,500 gentler eastern slope. Okay, so deprivation is 242 00:10:42,500 --> 00:10:45,980 morally... more urgent than excess in this view 243 00:10:45,980 --> 00:10:48,820 the steeper slope shows that faster drop in value 244 00:10:48,820 --> 00:10:51,539 exactly it builds that priority right into the 245 00:10:51,539 --> 00:10:54,120 geometry hashtag tag tag 2 .3 fault forfeits 246 00:10:54,120 --> 00:10:57,440 first fff and differential slopes okay this idea 247 00:10:57,440 --> 00:10:59,580 of slopes brings us back to that intuition we 248 00:10:59,580 --> 00:11:01,460 mentioned earlier fault forfeits first remember 249 00:11:01,460 --> 00:11:04,360 amos and boris amos is innocent boris caused 250 00:11:04,360 --> 00:11:07,159 the harm if you can only help one you help amos 251 00:11:07,159 --> 00:11:09,360 how does the graph show why this is where the 252 00:11:09,360 --> 00:11:13,669 slopes really shine The FFF intuition is captured 253 00:11:13,669 --> 00:11:16,029 perfectly by the difference in the slopes of 254 00:11:16,029 --> 00:11:19,330 Amos' and Boris' individual desert lines, specifically 255 00:11:19,330 --> 00:11:21,230 on the side where they need help, the western 256 00:11:21,230 --> 00:11:23,970 slope, typically. How does that work? Well, the 257 00:11:23,970 --> 00:11:26,269 slope represents the rate of change, how much 258 00:11:26,269 --> 00:11:29,549 moral value, y -axis gain, you get for each unit 259 00:11:29,549 --> 00:11:31,490 of well -being, x -axis increase, you provide. 260 00:11:32,090 --> 00:11:34,730 Since Amos is innocent, his desert line will 261 00:11:34,730 --> 00:11:36,690 have a steeper slope. Let's say it's a slope 262 00:11:36,690 --> 00:11:39,610 of 1 .0. Meaning for every unit of well -being 263 00:11:39,610 --> 00:11:42,370 you give Amos, you get one full unit of moral 264 00:11:42,370 --> 00:11:44,590 value back on the y -axis. It's a one -to -one 265 00:11:44,590 --> 00:11:47,690 return. Okay. And Boris? Boris is culpable. Yeah. 266 00:11:47,769 --> 00:11:50,830 His fault means his claim is weaker. So his desert 267 00:11:50,830 --> 00:11:52,889 line will have a gentler slope, maybe only 0 268 00:11:52,889 --> 00:11:55,309 .8. For every unit of well -being you give Boris, 269 00:11:55,450 --> 00:11:57,610 you only get 0 .8 units of moral value back. 270 00:11:57,769 --> 00:12:00,110 Wow, okay. So the geometry literally quantifies 271 00:12:00,110 --> 00:12:02,850 that intuition. We can see the better moral return 272 00:12:02,850 --> 00:12:05,289 on helping Amos. That's the power of it, yes. 273 00:12:05,409 --> 00:12:07,610 You can see it precisely. Unit for unit, helping 274 00:12:07,610 --> 00:12:09,730 Amos does more good from the standpoint of desert 275 00:12:09,730 --> 00:12:12,710 than helping Boris. The slopes make that visually 276 00:12:12,710 --> 00:12:15,250 and mathematically clear. But life isn't always 277 00:12:15,250 --> 00:12:18,090 about giving equal units of help, right? What 278 00:12:18,090 --> 00:12:20,490 if you could help Boris a lot more than Amos? 279 00:12:20,860 --> 00:12:23,379 Excellent point. And the model handles this perfectly. 280 00:12:23,679 --> 00:12:26,539 Even though Boris' slope is gentler, a lower 281 00:12:26,539 --> 00:12:28,779 rate of return, if the amount of help you can 282 00:12:28,779 --> 00:12:31,220 give him is significantly larger if you can move 283 00:12:31,220 --> 00:12:34,139 him much further along the x -axis. Like saving 284 00:12:34,139 --> 00:12:37,259 his life versus just easing Amos' headache. Exactly. 285 00:12:37,460 --> 00:12:40,259 If the total distance moved along the x -axis 286 00:12:40,259 --> 00:12:42,639 for Boris is large enough, the total gain in 287 00:12:42,639 --> 00:12:45,559 y, moral value, could still end up being greater 288 00:12:45,559 --> 00:12:47,799 than the smaller gain from helping Amos, even 289 00:12:47,799 --> 00:12:50,289 though Amos had the steeper slope. So it forces 290 00:12:50,289 --> 00:12:52,830 you to weigh the rate of return against the magnitude 291 00:12:52,830 --> 00:12:55,730 of the benefit. Precisely. It captures that complex 292 00:12:55,730 --> 00:12:58,250 tradeoff between the quality of the claim, slope 293 00:12:58,250 --> 00:13:00,669 steepness, and the quantity of the aid provided, 294 00:13:00,889 --> 00:13:03,250 x -axis movement. Okay, we've got the basic mountain 295 00:13:03,250 --> 00:13:05,889 shape for one person. But obviously, morality 296 00:13:05,889 --> 00:13:08,929 involves everyone. How do all these individual 297 00:13:08,929 --> 00:13:11,190 mountains fit together? How does the geometry 298 00:13:11,190 --> 00:13:13,269 handle differences between saints and sinners? 299 00:13:13,690 --> 00:13:16,169 Hashtag, hashtag, trade price 3 .1 rotation and 300 00:13:16,169 --> 00:13:18,539 bell motion. We connect individual lines through 301 00:13:18,539 --> 00:13:21,659 two key concepts, rotation and what the source 302 00:13:21,659 --> 00:13:24,700 calls bell motion. These describe how the entire 303 00:13:24,700 --> 00:13:27,539 mountain shape changes based on a person's overall 304 00:13:27,539 --> 00:13:30,559 virtue or vice. Rotation? Like spinning the mountain? 305 00:13:30,799 --> 00:13:33,639 Sort of. Think about the slopes again. The core 306 00:13:33,639 --> 00:13:35,860 idea is that increasing culpability becoming 307 00:13:35,860 --> 00:13:38,519 more vicious reduces the value of the slopes. 308 00:13:38,740 --> 00:13:41,240 It makes the whole mountain, in effect, gentler, 309 00:13:41,240 --> 00:13:44,250 flatter. Conversely, increasing virtue rotates 310 00:13:44,250 --> 00:13:47,370 the line counterclockwise. This makes the slopes, 311 00:13:47,429 --> 00:13:49,190 especially the western slope leading up to the 312 00:13:49,190 --> 00:13:52,090 peak, steeper. More virtue means a higher moral 313 00:13:52,090 --> 00:13:54,970 return on aid. And more vice. More vice rotates 314 00:13:54,970 --> 00:13:57,970 the line clockwise. This makes the slopes gentler. 315 00:13:58,070 --> 00:14:00,350 The moral return on aid gets smaller and smaller. 316 00:14:00,610 --> 00:14:03,009 And crucially, for some views, it can even become 317 00:14:03,009 --> 00:14:05,190 negative. Okay, walk me through reducing the 318 00:14:05,190 --> 00:14:07,669 value of the slope again, morally. It's about 319 00:14:07,669 --> 00:14:09,889 that return on investment. A highly virtuous 320 00:14:09,889 --> 00:14:13,250 person. Steep slope, counterclockwise rotation, 321 00:14:13,549 --> 00:14:16,669 helping them yields a big jump in moral value, 322 00:14:16,830 --> 00:14:21,049 y -axis for the well -being given, x -axis. A 323 00:14:21,049 --> 00:14:23,990 highly vicious person, gentle slope, clockwise 324 00:14:23,990 --> 00:14:26,570 rotation, helping them yields very little moral 325 00:14:26,570 --> 00:14:30,289 value or maybe even reduces it. And bill motion, 326 00:14:30,389 --> 00:14:32,360 what's that? Bell motion is just the name for 327 00:14:32,360 --> 00:14:34,620 the overall pattern of this rotation across the 328 00:14:34,620 --> 00:14:37,960 whole spectrum of people. Imagine lining up everyone's 329 00:14:37,960 --> 00:14:40,500 peaks from the most vicious person way over on 330 00:14:40,500 --> 00:14:42,759 the left, negative x value for their deserved 331 00:14:42,759 --> 00:14:45,279 well -being, to the most virtuous person way 332 00:14:45,279 --> 00:14:48,460 over on the right, positive x. Okay. As you move 333 00:14:48,460 --> 00:14:50,320 visually from left vicious to right virtuous, 334 00:14:50,460 --> 00:14:52,460 you'd see the individual desert lines systematically 335 00:14:52,460 --> 00:14:55,679 rotating counterclockwise. They start flat or 336 00:14:55,679 --> 00:14:58,039 even negatively sloped for the very vicious and 337 00:14:58,039 --> 00:15:00,019 become progressively steeper as you move towards 338 00:15:00,019 --> 00:15:02,799 the highly virtuous. It's like a wave or a bell 339 00:15:02,799 --> 00:15:04,440 shape if you consider the slopes themselves. 340 00:15:04,799 --> 00:15:07,059 And this rotation, especially the clockwise rotation 341 00:15:07,059 --> 00:15:09,740 for the vicious, is how the retributivist view 342 00:15:09,740 --> 00:15:13,019 gets built into the geometry. The idea that helping 343 00:15:13,019 --> 00:15:15,740 the really bad guys is actually bad. Exactly. 344 00:15:16,200 --> 00:15:18,740 To make the retributivist view work geometrically, 345 00:15:18,840 --> 00:15:20,940 the claim that aiding the sufficiently vicious 346 00:15:20,940 --> 00:15:23,700 is intrinsically bad from a desert standpoint, 347 00:15:23,980 --> 00:15:26,639 their desert lines must be able to rotate so 348 00:15:26,639 --> 00:15:29,179 far clockwise that they acquire negative slope, 349 00:15:29,360 --> 00:15:31,279 at least on the eastern side, giving them more 350 00:15:31,279 --> 00:15:33,240 than they deserve. Explain that negative slope 351 00:15:33,240 --> 00:15:36,059 part again. Okay, imagine a truly terrible person 352 00:15:36,059 --> 00:15:39,440 who's... peak, their deserved level, is deep 353 00:15:39,440 --> 00:15:43,120 in suffering territory, say X -10. A retributivist 354 00:15:43,120 --> 00:15:45,360 might say moving them from negative 10 to 0, 355 00:15:45,480 --> 00:15:48,039 neutral well -being, is actually a bad thing 356 00:15:48,039 --> 00:15:50,120 from Desert's perspective. Because they're getting 357 00:15:50,120 --> 00:15:52,240 better than they deserve. Precisely. So on the 358 00:15:52,240 --> 00:15:54,919 graph, moving right along the X -axis, increasing 359 00:15:54,919 --> 00:15:57,820 well -being from net of 10 to 0, must cause the 360 00:15:57,820 --> 00:16:00,799 line to move down the Y -axis, decreasing moral 361 00:16:00,799 --> 00:16:03,100 value. That requires a negative slope, a negative 362 00:16:03,100 --> 00:16:05,320 multiplier. Maybe the slope is negative 0 .5 363 00:16:05,320 --> 00:16:08,019 or even negative 1. Got it. So the geometry can 364 00:16:08,019 --> 00:16:10,919 actually map both views. Moderates, whose slopes 365 00:16:10,919 --> 00:16:14,139 never go negative, and retributivists, whose 366 00:16:14,139 --> 00:16:16,299 slopes must go negative for the extremely vicious. 367 00:16:16,639 --> 00:16:19,000 That's the elegance of it. It provides a common 368 00:16:19,000 --> 00:16:22,259 framework to represent and compare these fundamentally 369 00:16:22,259 --> 00:16:26,529 opposed moral stances. Hashtag tag 3 .2, the 370 00:16:26,529 --> 00:16:28,629 skyline, the height of the peaks. Okay, we have 371 00:16:28,629 --> 00:16:30,509 all these individual mountains rotating based 372 00:16:30,509 --> 00:16:33,649 on virtue. What happens if we connect the dots, 373 00:16:33,769 --> 00:16:36,570 specifically the very top point, the peak of 374 00:16:36,570 --> 00:16:39,070 every single mountain? If you trace a line connecting 375 00:16:39,070 --> 00:16:42,370 all the peaks, you create the skyline. And the 376 00:16:42,370 --> 00:16:44,730 shape of the skyline represents perhaps the single 377 00:16:44,730 --> 00:16:47,850 most profound choice a moral theory based on 378 00:16:47,850 --> 00:16:50,169 desert has to make. Why is the skyline shape 379 00:16:50,169 --> 00:16:53,159 so important? Because it tells you how much intrinsic 380 00:16:53,159 --> 00:16:55,960 moral value is generated when anyone perfectly 381 00:16:55,960 --> 00:16:58,419 gets what they deserve. It reveals your core 382 00:16:58,419 --> 00:17:00,539 belief about whether satisfying desert for a 383 00:17:00,539 --> 00:17:02,759 saint is worth more than satisfying it for an 384 00:17:02,759 --> 00:17:04,960 average person. Okay, so what are the options 385 00:17:04,960 --> 00:17:07,059 for the skyline's shape? The source highlights 386 00:17:07,059 --> 00:17:09,380 three main possibilities. First, the standard 387 00:17:09,380 --> 00:17:11,740 skyline. This is just a flat, horizontal line. 388 00:17:11,980 --> 00:17:13,579 Meaning all the peaks are at the same height. 389 00:17:13,819 --> 00:17:16,880 Exactly. All peaks have the same y -coordinate. 390 00:17:17,160 --> 00:17:20,779 This view embodies a kind of equal regard. It 391 00:17:20,779 --> 00:17:23,160 says, yes, people deserve vastly different levels 392 00:17:23,160 --> 00:17:24,960 of well -being. Their peaks are different places 393 00:17:24,960 --> 00:17:27,480 on the x -axis. But the amount of moral good 394 00:17:27,480 --> 00:17:29,880 achieved when any person hits their specific 395 00:17:29,880 --> 00:17:33,099 peak is exactly the same. So the universe gets 396 00:17:33,099 --> 00:17:36,180 the same moral goodness boost, whether a normal 397 00:17:36,180 --> 00:17:39,200 person gets their just desserts or Mother Teresa 398 00:17:39,200 --> 00:17:42,619 gets hers. the act of satisfaction is equally 399 00:17:42,619 --> 00:17:45,000 valuable. That's the core idea of the standard 400 00:17:45,000 --> 00:17:47,660 skyline. Now contrast that with the V -shaped 401 00:17:47,660 --> 00:17:50,039 skyline. V -shaped, meaning the peaks are higher 402 00:17:50,039 --> 00:17:52,539 at the extremes. Precisely. In this view, the 403 00:17:52,539 --> 00:17:54,799 peaks are higher, they have a greater y -coordinate 404 00:17:54,799 --> 00:17:57,420 the further they are from the moral center, x0. 405 00:17:57,680 --> 00:18:00,180 So the peaks for the extremely virtuous and the 406 00:18:00,180 --> 00:18:02,599 extremely vicious are higher than the peaks for 407 00:18:02,599 --> 00:18:04,359 morally average people. What does that imply? 408 00:18:04,700 --> 00:18:06,660 It implies that it's intrinsically more important, 409 00:18:06,819 --> 00:18:09,339 it generates more moral value, to ensure that 410 00:18:09,339 --> 00:18:11,539 the morally significant individuals, the saints 411 00:18:11,539 --> 00:18:13,799 and the archvillains, get exactly what they deserve 412 00:18:13,799 --> 00:18:16,940 compared to moderately good or bad people. It 413 00:18:16,940 --> 00:18:19,740 prioritizes satisfying desert at the moral extremes. 414 00:18:20,119 --> 00:18:22,920 So if you hold this view, you might say, focus 415 00:18:22,920 --> 00:18:25,680 more societal resources on ensuring the saint 416 00:18:25,680 --> 00:18:28,380 is rewarded or the villain is punished appropriately 417 00:18:28,380 --> 00:18:31,619 because the moral stakes, the potential y -axis 418 00:18:31,619 --> 00:18:34,619 gain or loss, are higher there. That's a potential 419 00:18:34,619 --> 00:18:37,259 consequence, yes. It suggests the magnitude of 420 00:18:37,259 --> 00:18:40,160 the virtue, or vice, affects the importance of 421 00:18:40,160 --> 00:18:43,000 satisfying the corresponding desert. And then 422 00:18:43,000 --> 00:18:46,220 there's a third, quite radical option, the sea 423 00:18:46,220 --> 00:18:49,099 level skyline. Sea level, meaning flat on the 424 00:18:49,099 --> 00:18:51,500 bottom. Exactly. All the peaks lie directly on 425 00:18:51,500 --> 00:18:53,960 the x -axis. Their y -coordinate is zero. Why 426 00:18:53,960 --> 00:18:56,819 zero? But why is moral value? What does it mean 427 00:18:56,819 --> 00:18:59,500 if the peak, the best state, has zero moral value? 428 00:18:59,819 --> 00:19:02,099 It means that satisfying desert doesn't actually 429 00:19:02,099 --> 00:19:05,019 create any positive intrinsic good. Instead, 430 00:19:05,259 --> 00:19:07,720 it merely eliminates the intrinsic bad associated 431 00:19:07,720 --> 00:19:10,099 with someone not getting what they deserve. Whoa. 432 00:19:10,240 --> 00:19:13,000 So justice, in this view, isn't about creating 433 00:19:13,000 --> 00:19:15,160 goodness. It's purely about preventing or fixing 434 00:19:15,160 --> 00:19:17,480 badness. The best you could do is reach zero, 435 00:19:17,640 --> 00:19:20,769 eliminate the injustice. That's the stark implication. 436 00:19:21,190 --> 00:19:23,930 The goal isn't positive moral achievement through 437 00:19:23,930 --> 00:19:26,690 desert. It's simply avoiding the negative value 438 00:19:26,690 --> 00:19:30,410 of injustice. So you see, the choice of skyline, 439 00:19:30,470 --> 00:19:33,650 flat, V -shaped, or sea level fundamentally defines 440 00:19:33,650 --> 00:19:36,450 the entire moral ambition of your desert -based 441 00:19:36,450 --> 00:19:39,210 system. Hashtag, hashtag, hashtag, 3 .3, dissecting 442 00:19:39,210 --> 00:19:42,309 types of desert beyond absolute. This whole geometric 443 00:19:42,309 --> 00:19:45,369 setup seems to allow for much finer distinctions 444 00:19:45,369 --> 00:19:47,130 than just saying someone deserves something. 445 00:19:47,609 --> 00:19:50,230 The source mentions four specific types of desert 446 00:19:50,230 --> 00:19:53,009 that the geometry helps define. Yes. The precision 447 00:19:53,009 --> 00:19:55,430 of the graph lets us clearly distinguish between 448 00:19:55,430 --> 00:19:58,470 related but different concepts. First, absolute 449 00:19:58,470 --> 00:20:00,609 desert. We've talked about this one. It's simply 450 00:20:00,609 --> 00:20:02,710 the x -coordinate of the peak. It's the target, 451 00:20:02,789 --> 00:20:04,829 what level of well -being they absolutely deserve. 452 00:20:05,009 --> 00:20:07,690 The target level. Second, general desert. This 453 00:20:07,690 --> 00:20:09,930 refers to the entire character of the person's 454 00:20:09,930 --> 00:20:12,730 mountain, its specific shape, how steep its slopes 455 00:20:12,730 --> 00:20:15,599 are. rotation, where its peak is located. It's 456 00:20:15,599 --> 00:20:17,940 the overall profile of their deservingness across 457 00:20:17,940 --> 00:20:20,079 all possible outcomes. The whole picture for 458 00:20:20,079 --> 00:20:23,680 that person. Third, current desert. This is about 459 00:20:23,680 --> 00:20:26,200 the gap between where someone is and where their 460 00:20:26,200 --> 00:20:29,259 peak is. Specifically, it's measured by the Y 461 00:20:29,259 --> 00:20:32,400 gap, the vertical distance, the drop -off in 462 00:20:32,400 --> 00:20:34,759 moral value, between the height of their peak 463 00:20:34,759 --> 00:20:37,299 and the Y value of their current situation. So 464 00:20:37,299 --> 00:20:39,599 current desert measures how much moral value 465 00:20:39,599 --> 00:20:42,259 potential is currently unrealized for that person. 466 00:20:42,420 --> 00:20:45,039 Exactly. It quantifies the extent of the current 467 00:20:45,039 --> 00:20:47,500 injustice or shortfall from the standpoint of 468 00:20:47,500 --> 00:20:50,700 desert. A large Y -gap means they are far below 469 00:20:50,700 --> 00:20:53,039 their peak in terms of moral value achieved. 470 00:20:53,519 --> 00:20:57,359 And fourth, immediate desert. This is all about 471 00:20:57,359 --> 00:20:59,380 the priority for helping right now. It's measured 472 00:20:59,380 --> 00:21:01,400 by the slope of the desert line at the person's 473 00:21:01,400 --> 00:21:04,240 actual current location on the graph. The slope 474 00:21:04,240 --> 00:21:06,740 right where they are. How does that give us priority? 475 00:21:07,309 --> 00:21:09,369 Think about it. If someone has a very steep slope 476 00:21:09,369 --> 00:21:11,170 at their current position, it means that even 477 00:21:11,170 --> 00:21:13,710 a small improvement in their well -being, a small 478 00:21:13,710 --> 00:21:15,990 move to the right on the x -axis, will produce 479 00:21:15,990 --> 00:21:19,490 a large increase in moral value. A big jump up 480 00:21:19,490 --> 00:21:21,750 the y -axis. Ah, the rate of return right now. 481 00:21:22,099 --> 00:21:25,579 Precisely. So if you have limited resources and 482 00:21:25,579 --> 00:21:27,779 have to choose who gets the next small bit of 483 00:21:27,779 --> 00:21:30,700 aid, immediate desert says prioritize the person 484 00:21:30,700 --> 00:21:32,900 with the steepest slope at their current location, 485 00:21:33,099 --> 00:21:35,039 because that's where you'll get the biggest moral 486 00:21:35,039 --> 00:21:37,539 bang for your buck right now. Even if someone 487 00:21:37,539 --> 00:21:39,920 else has a larger overall wide gap, higher current 488 00:21:39,920 --> 00:21:42,599 desert, if their current slope is flat, immediate 489 00:21:42,599 --> 00:21:45,140 aid won't do much good from a desert perspective. 490 00:21:45,480 --> 00:21:47,980 OK, we've mapped the individual's desert landscape 491 00:21:47,980 --> 00:21:50,759 pretty thoroughly, but people don't exist in 492 00:21:50,759 --> 00:21:53,640 isolation. How does this geometry handle the 493 00:21:53,640 --> 00:21:55,720 complexities of comparing different people's 494 00:21:55,720 --> 00:21:59,099 deserts? Fairness between individuals. Hashtag 495 00:21:59,099 --> 00:22:02,059 hashtag 4 .1. Non -comparative versus comparative 496 00:22:02,059 --> 00:22:04,700 desert. Right. So far, we've mostly focused on 497 00:22:04,700 --> 00:22:06,480 what the source calls non -comparative desert. 498 00:22:06,579 --> 00:22:08,940 That's the single mountain graph focusing on 499 00:22:08,940 --> 00:22:11,079 one person's relationship to their own deserved 500 00:22:11,079 --> 00:22:13,819 outcome. Getting their own peak. Exactly. But 501 00:22:13,819 --> 00:22:16,240 overall desert has another component. Comparative 502 00:22:16,240 --> 00:22:18,220 desert. This looks at the moral significance 503 00:22:18,220 --> 00:22:20,700 of how individuals stand relative to each other, 504 00:22:20,779 --> 00:22:23,319 considering what each deserves. It's about interpersonal 505 00:22:23,319 --> 00:22:25,980 fairness. If non -comparative is about hitting 506 00:22:25,980 --> 00:22:28,279 the ideal, comparative sounds like it's about 507 00:22:28,279 --> 00:22:31,339 fairness, when people inevitably miss their ideal. 508 00:22:31,839 --> 00:22:35,079 Hashtag, hashtag 4 .2, the Y -gap constraint 509 00:22:35,079 --> 00:22:37,240 and relative advantage. That's a very good way 510 00:22:37,240 --> 00:22:40,160 to put it. And the geometric framework offers 511 00:22:40,160 --> 00:22:42,619 a really elegant solution here, called the Y 512 00:22:42,619 --> 00:22:45,769 -gap view of comparative desert. The Y -gap again. 513 00:22:45,869 --> 00:22:48,369 How does that work for comparison? The Y -gap 514 00:22:48,369 --> 00:22:50,529 view states that comparative desert is perfectly 515 00:22:50,529 --> 00:22:53,009 satisfied when the offense against non -comparative 516 00:22:53,009 --> 00:22:55,569 desert measured by that Y -gap, the drop from 517 00:22:55,569 --> 00:22:58,230 the peak is the same for everyone. Wait, so comparative 518 00:22:58,230 --> 00:23:00,750 fairness is achieved when everyone's Y -gap is 519 00:23:00,750 --> 00:23:03,410 equal, not when their well -being is equal or 520 00:23:03,410 --> 00:23:05,869 even proportional to their desert, but when the 521 00:23:05,869 --> 00:23:09,140 moral value shortfall is equal. Precisely. It 522 00:23:09,140 --> 00:23:11,420 doesn't matter if person A deserves 100 and is 523 00:23:11,420 --> 00:23:14,220 at 90 while person B deserves 10 and is at zero. 524 00:23:14,539 --> 00:23:17,000 If the vertical drop on the y -axis from their 525 00:23:17,000 --> 00:23:19,200 respective peaks is the same size for both A 526 00:23:19,200 --> 00:23:21,640 and B, then comparative desert is satisfied. 527 00:23:21,680 --> 00:23:23,859 Why is that the measure? Because the wide gap 528 00:23:23,859 --> 00:23:26,319 represents the degree of moral offense, the amount 529 00:23:26,319 --> 00:23:29,299 of lost value, if the wide gaps are equal, it 530 00:23:29,299 --> 00:23:31,640 means no one is suffering a greater injustice 531 00:23:31,640 --> 00:23:34,000 relative to their own desert than anyone else. 532 00:23:34,500 --> 00:23:36,779 Neither person has a relative advantage over 533 00:23:36,779 --> 00:23:38,700 the other in terms of how far they fall short 534 00:23:38,700 --> 00:23:41,140 of their own deserved state, morally speaking. 535 00:23:41,440 --> 00:23:43,380 That's a really different way of thinking about 536 00:23:43,380 --> 00:23:46,579 fairness. It's not about equal outcomes, but 537 00:23:46,579 --> 00:23:49,630 equal moral shortfall. Exactly. It shifts the 538 00:23:49,630 --> 00:23:52,250 focus from comparing x -axis positions, well, 539 00:23:52,410 --> 00:23:55,130 being levels, to comparing y -axis drops, moral 540 00:23:55,130 --> 00:23:57,829 value losses. If someone has a smaller y -gap 541 00:23:57,829 --> 00:24:00,049 than you, they have a relative advantage because 542 00:24:00,049 --> 00:24:02,009 they are closer to achieving their deserved moral 543 00:24:02,009 --> 00:24:04,750 value than you are to achieving yours. Comparative 544 00:24:04,750 --> 00:24:07,009 Desert aims to eliminate those relative advantages 545 00:24:07,009 --> 00:24:09,750 by equalizing the y -gaps. Hashtag, hashtag, 546 00:24:09,789 --> 00:24:12,950 4 .3, the problem with simple models, ratio view. 547 00:24:13,130 --> 00:24:16,049 Okay, this y -gap approach seems quite sophisticated. 548 00:24:16,990 --> 00:24:19,210 It makes sense why simpler ideas about comparative 549 00:24:19,210 --> 00:24:21,589 justice might run into trouble. The source mentions 550 00:24:21,589 --> 00:24:24,250 the ratio view as an example. Yes, the ratio 551 00:24:24,250 --> 00:24:27,089 view is a historically appealing idea, maybe 552 00:24:27,089 --> 00:24:29,490 loosely connected to ancient concepts of proportional 553 00:24:29,490 --> 00:24:32,329 justice. It basically suggested that comparative 554 00:24:32,329 --> 00:24:34,630 desert is satisfied when the ratio of people's 555 00:24:34,630 --> 00:24:37,170 actual well -being matches the ratio of their 556 00:24:37,170 --> 00:24:39,829 deserved well -being, their peaks. So if A deserves 557 00:24:39,829 --> 00:24:43,829 10 and B deserves 20, a 1 .2 ratio, their actual 558 00:24:43,829 --> 00:24:45,849 well -being should always be in a 1 .2 ratio. 559 00:24:46,069 --> 00:24:49,710 That's the idea. Simple seems elegant until you 560 00:24:49,710 --> 00:24:52,109 hit zero or negative numbers, which, you know, 561 00:24:52,109 --> 00:24:54,049 happens all the time in ethics, people experiencing 562 00:24:54,049 --> 00:24:56,289 neutral lives or actual suffering. How does it 563 00:24:56,289 --> 00:24:58,430 break down? Catastrophically. Let's use that 564 00:24:58,430 --> 00:25:01,309 same example. A deserves 10, B deserves 20, 1 565 00:25:01,309 --> 00:25:04,269 .2 ratio. Now, suppose something happens and 566 00:25:04,269 --> 00:25:06,849 A's actual well -being gets fixed at zero. Maybe 567 00:25:06,849 --> 00:25:08,970 they're in a coma, a life neither good nor bad. 568 00:25:09,269 --> 00:25:12,390 To maintain the 1 .2 ratio, what does B's well 569 00:25:12,390 --> 00:25:15,369 -being have to be? Two times zero. It has to 570 00:25:15,369 --> 00:25:18,029 be zero as well. Exactly. The ratio view demands 571 00:25:18,029 --> 00:25:20,869 B must also be at zero well -being, but that's 572 00:25:20,869 --> 00:25:23,710 morally absurd. B is the more virtuous person, 573 00:25:23,789 --> 00:25:26,329 deserving twice as much well -being as A. Surely 574 00:25:26,329 --> 00:25:28,529 comparative justice requires B to be better off 575 00:25:28,529 --> 00:25:31,089 than A, not equally neutral. Yeah, that's clearly 576 00:25:31,089 --> 00:25:33,930 wrong. And it gets even worse with negative numbers. 577 00:25:34,390 --> 00:25:37,029 Suppose A deserves zero and B deserves negative. 578 00:25:37,549 --> 00:25:40,490 Deserves to suffer. If A happens to be doing 579 00:25:40,490 --> 00:25:43,750 well, say at plus five actual well -being, what 580 00:25:43,750 --> 00:25:46,769 does the ratio view demand for B? The math just 581 00:25:46,769 --> 00:25:48,990 breaks down completely or gives nonsensical results. 582 00:25:49,670 --> 00:25:52,269 So the ratio view fails because it's stuck comparing 583 00:25:52,269 --> 00:25:55,349 x -axis values directly. Yes, it tries to make 584 00:25:55,349 --> 00:25:57,410 the levels of well -being proportional without 585 00:25:57,410 --> 00:25:59,589 considering the moral value represented on the 586 00:25:59,589 --> 00:26:02,789 y -axis. The y -gap view solves this by focusing 587 00:26:02,789 --> 00:26:05,109 on the equality of the moral offense, the drop 588 00:26:05,109 --> 00:26:07,509 in y, which works perfectly well across positive, 589 00:26:07,609 --> 00:26:10,349 negative, and zero values on the x -axis. It 590 00:26:10,349 --> 00:26:12,250 shows that the geometry isn't just complexity 591 00:26:12,250 --> 00:26:14,809 for its own sake. It solves real problems that 592 00:26:14,809 --> 00:26:16,730 simpler models can't handle. Okay, so we have 593 00:26:16,730 --> 00:26:18,990 these two parts of desert. Non -comparative. 594 00:26:19,309 --> 00:26:21,930 Hitting your peak. Yeah. And comparative equalizing 595 00:26:21,930 --> 00:26:23,970 the Y gaps. But surely they sometimes conflict, 596 00:26:24,170 --> 00:26:26,369 right? Like maybe helping person A gets them 597 00:26:26,369 --> 00:26:28,490 closer to their peak, but it makes the Y gaps 598 00:26:28,490 --> 00:26:30,829 between A and B much less equal. Absolutely. 599 00:26:30,829 --> 00:26:34,170 That's a core tension in applied ethics. Improving 600 00:26:34,170 --> 00:26:36,289 one aspect of desert might worsen the other. 601 00:26:36,509 --> 00:26:40,150 This forces a crucial question. How do we weigh 602 00:26:40,150 --> 00:26:43,390 these two values against each other? Is one vastly 603 00:26:43,390 --> 00:26:45,529 more important? Does non -comparative always 604 00:26:45,529 --> 00:26:48,339 trump comparative or vice versa? The position 605 00:26:48,339 --> 00:26:51,039 taken in this framework is actually quite nuanced. 606 00:26:51,339 --> 00:26:55,519 It argues that the two partial values, non -comparative 607 00:26:55,519 --> 00:26:58,119 and comparative desert, are of roughly the same 608 00:26:58,119 --> 00:27:00,200 order of significance. Roughly the same. What 609 00:27:00,200 --> 00:27:01,940 does that mean in practice? It means neither 610 00:27:01,940 --> 00:27:05,400 one completely swamps the other. While in a specific 611 00:27:05,400 --> 00:27:07,859 situation, one might outweigh the other, maybe. 612 00:27:08,299 --> 00:27:11,259 Non -comparative desert is 10 times more important 613 00:27:11,259 --> 00:27:13,900 in this particular choice. It's not likely to 614 00:27:13,900 --> 00:27:15,819 be a million times more important. They're in 615 00:27:15,819 --> 00:27:18,220 the same ballpark of significance. Why is that 616 00:27:18,220 --> 00:27:21,140 rough comparability so important? Because it 617 00:27:21,140 --> 00:27:24,859 keeps the moral dilemmas real. If, say, comparative 618 00:27:24,859 --> 00:27:27,259 desert equalizing Y -gaps was overwhelmingly 619 00:27:27,259 --> 00:27:30,200 more important, we'd basically ignore individual 620 00:27:30,200 --> 00:27:32,819 peaks and just try to make everyone equally far 621 00:27:32,819 --> 00:27:35,319 from their ideal, morally speaking. We'd aim 622 00:27:35,319 --> 00:27:37,970 for equal injustice, essentially. Right. And 623 00:27:37,970 --> 00:27:40,170 if non -comparative hitting the peak was all 624 00:27:40,170 --> 00:27:42,250 that mattered, we'd just focus on getting one 625 00:27:42,250 --> 00:27:44,589 person to their peak, even if it created massive 626 00:27:44,589 --> 00:27:47,750 unfairness relative to others. By saying they're 627 00:27:47,750 --> 00:27:50,410 roughly comparable, the model ensures we always 628 00:27:50,410 --> 00:27:52,809 have to consider both. We have to weigh the benefit 629 00:27:52,809 --> 00:27:55,410 of moving someone closer to their absolute deserved 630 00:27:55,410 --> 00:27:58,009 level against the benefit of reducing relative 631 00:27:58,009 --> 00:28:01,329 inequality between people. It forces a constant 632 00:28:01,329 --> 00:28:03,970 balancing act, reflecting the complexity of real 633 00:28:03,970 --> 00:28:08,140 moral choices. Hashtag 4 .5 relevance to applied 634 00:28:08,140 --> 00:28:10,900 ethics, deontology and improvement. So we've 635 00:28:10,900 --> 00:28:13,660 gone deep into the geometry peaks, slopes, rotations, 636 00:28:13,980 --> 00:28:16,740 skylines, y -gaps. Bringing it back out, how 637 00:28:16,740 --> 00:28:19,279 does all this intricate mapping actually help 638 00:28:19,279 --> 00:28:22,160 us think about real world ethics like laws or 639 00:28:22,160 --> 00:28:24,319 policies? Is it more than just a philosopher's 640 00:28:24,319 --> 00:28:26,480 diagram? Oh, absolutely. The claim is that these 641 00:28:26,480 --> 00:28:28,380 geometric distinctions aren't just theoretical 642 00:28:28,380 --> 00:28:31,339 curiosities. They map directly onto real substantive 643 00:28:31,339 --> 00:28:33,339 disagreements in ethics and political philosophy. 644 00:28:34,039 --> 00:28:35,819 Think about any ethical theory that includes 645 00:28:35,819 --> 00:28:38,359 a duty to give people what they deserve. That's 646 00:28:38,359 --> 00:28:40,500 a cornerstone of many justice theories, especially 647 00:28:40,500 --> 00:28:43,000 the analogical ones. Like Kantian ethics, perhaps, 648 00:28:43,119 --> 00:28:45,880 or just basic fairness principles? Exactly. But 649 00:28:45,880 --> 00:28:49,059 what does giving people what they deserve actually 650 00:28:49,059 --> 00:28:52,279 mean in complex cases? The geometry provides 651 00:28:52,279 --> 00:28:55,059 the necessary toolkit to figure that out. Do 652 00:28:55,059 --> 00:28:57,400 we mean satisfy their absolute desert, match 653 00:28:57,400 --> 00:29:00,559 their peak? Or prioritize immediate desert, get 654 00:29:00,559 --> 00:29:03,920 the best moral return right now? Or focus on 655 00:29:03,920 --> 00:29:06,779 comparative desert, equalize the Y gaps. A legal 656 00:29:06,779 --> 00:29:08,700 system, for example, would need to decide which 657 00:29:08,700 --> 00:29:12,059 of those is the primary goal of, say, sentencing 658 00:29:12,059 --> 00:29:15,240 or resource distribution. Precisely. Are we trying 659 00:29:15,240 --> 00:29:17,930 to... perfectly match the punishment to the initial 660 00:29:17,930 --> 00:29:20,690 crime, absolute desert? Or are we trying to allocate 661 00:29:20,690 --> 00:29:22,730 rehab resources where they'll have the biggest 662 00:29:22,730 --> 00:29:25,349 immediate impact on reducing future harm related 663 00:29:25,349 --> 00:29:28,049 to maximizing value game like immediate desert? 664 00:29:28,269 --> 00:29:30,630 These geometric concepts correspond to different 665 00:29:30,630 --> 00:29:32,690 policy goals. And it's not just about hitting 666 00:29:32,690 --> 00:29:34,670 perfection, right? Most systems are imperfect. 667 00:29:35,009 --> 00:29:37,210 That's the other key application. We rarely, 668 00:29:37,349 --> 00:29:39,869 if ever, achieve perfect desert satisfaction 669 00:29:39,869 --> 00:29:42,430 for everyone. So we desperately need a way to 670 00:29:42,430 --> 00:29:45,230 judge whether one imperfect situation is better 671 00:29:45,230 --> 00:29:47,910 or worse than another imperfect situation. We 672 00:29:47,910 --> 00:29:50,289 need to measure moral progress. Exactly. And 673 00:29:50,289 --> 00:29:52,829 the geometry, specifically the y -axis representing 674 00:29:52,829 --> 00:29:55,630 moral goodness, gives us that measure. We can 675 00:29:55,630 --> 00:29:58,450 analyze a policy change. Does it tend to move 676 00:29:58,450 --> 00:30:00,630 people closer to their peaks overall? Does it 677 00:30:00,630 --> 00:30:03,549 tend to reduce the average y -gap? Does it increase 678 00:30:03,549 --> 00:30:06,269 the total sum of y -values across the population? 679 00:30:06,630 --> 00:30:08,690 The framework allows us to compare different 680 00:30:08,690 --> 00:30:11,289 imperfect states and determine which one constitutes 681 00:30:11,289 --> 00:30:13,130 a genuine moral improvement from the standpoint 682 00:30:13,130 --> 00:30:16,619 of desert. Hashtag outro. So we started with 683 00:30:16,619 --> 00:30:18,660 this seemingly fuzzy idea what people deserve, 684 00:30:18,819 --> 00:30:20,519 and we've ended up with a surprisingly concrete 685 00:30:20,519 --> 00:30:23,559 visual language. Mountains representing individual 686 00:30:23,559 --> 00:30:26,279 desert, slopes showing moral return, rotation 687 00:30:26,279 --> 00:30:28,799 reflecting virtue and vice, and skylines revealing 688 00:30:28,799 --> 00:30:30,940 fundamental commitments about equality versus 689 00:30:30,940 --> 00:30:33,730 significance. Yeah, it's quite a journey. We've 690 00:30:33,730 --> 00:30:36,089 seen how deep philosophical battles, like the 691 00:30:36,089 --> 00:30:38,529 one between moderates and retributivists, can 692 00:30:38,529 --> 00:30:40,890 be understood as disagreements about the basic 693 00:30:40,890 --> 00:30:43,809 geometry. Should slopes be allowed to go negative? 694 00:30:43,930 --> 00:30:45,910 Should the overall pattern exhibit bell motion? 695 00:30:46,230 --> 00:30:49,009 And as you said, the choice of a skyline really 696 00:30:49,009 --> 00:30:52,019 crystallizes a core moral commitment. The standard 697 00:30:52,019 --> 00:30:54,880 skyline prioritizes equal value in the act of 698 00:30:54,880 --> 00:30:58,119 satisfaction itself. The V -shaped skyline prioritizes 699 00:30:58,119 --> 00:31:00,640 maximizing value by focusing on the morally significant 700 00:31:00,640 --> 00:31:03,599 individuals at the extremes. It forces you to 701 00:31:03,599 --> 00:31:06,839 decide what matters more, equal regard or rewarding 702 00:31:06,839 --> 00:31:10,059 moral magnitude. Which leads us, and you, with 703 00:31:10,059 --> 00:31:12,140 a final thought directly from this geometric 704 00:31:12,140 --> 00:31:14,700 structure. If you lean towards that V -shaped 705 00:31:14,700 --> 00:31:17,180 skyline, if you think the moral value of satisfying 706 00:31:17,180 --> 00:31:19,299 desert should be higher for the very good or 707 00:31:19,299 --> 00:31:22,019 the very bad, well, the geometry demands an answer. 708 00:31:22,119 --> 00:31:24,660 How much higher? Right. How much taller should 709 00:31:24,660 --> 00:31:26,759 the saint's peak be on the y -axis compared to 710 00:31:26,759 --> 00:31:28,839 the average person's peak? What's the justification 711 00:31:28,839 --> 00:31:31,000 for that specific difference in moral value? 712 00:31:31,220 --> 00:31:33,339 Is the ultimate aim of a just society to ensure 713 00:31:33,339 --> 00:31:36,220 equal value flows from satisfying anyone's desert, 714 00:31:36,359 --> 00:31:39,099 standard skyline, or is it to maximize the total 715 00:31:39,099 --> 00:31:41,640 moral good by differentially rewarding significance? 716 00:31:42,299 --> 00:31:44,660 v -shaped skyline. That's the choice that geometry 717 00:31:44,660 --> 00:31:46,000 lays bare for us to consider.