Well now I'm curious about what your views on free will are.
> Do you think someone has a claim to wealth that they earned entirely due to luck?
First off, this is a difficult question to answer because it seems yours and my definitions of "luck" are not the same. Or perhaps they are the same but we view the surrounding context and their individual manifestations as dissimilar.
I would say it depends on the situation. For example, If I'm walking through the parking lot and by chance (luck) find a $20 bill on the ground, am I deserving of my new found wealth? On a good day, I might turn it in to the nearest department store and hope it finds its way back to its original owner. If I'm feeling more cynical (or, arguably, realistic) I would just keep it.
Am I deserving of this wealth? I didn't really work for it, so I would argue, "no, not really." But then again I wouldn't really fault myself (or anyone else) for keeping it either.
On the other hand, let us consider two farmers who live near one another. They are twin brothers and received the same upbringing. One of the farmers tends his lands diligently while the other is concerned with other aspects of life and only does the bare minimum to survive. As you might expect, over time the first farmer prospers due to the hard work he has put in to cultivate his lands while the second farmer stagnates because he has prioritized other matters. They both understood the benefits of tending to land diligently from their shared upbringing, but they made different decisions for whatever reason.
Essentially, I'm asking you to consider these two farmers "in a vacuum" such that their wealth is due entirely to their own actions and not to any outside forces. Absolutely nothing left to chance, or "luck." By my definition of the word at least.
So, is your definition of luck different from mine such that you would argue the first farmer's success is still due to luck, or am I missing something else?
And thanks for the conversation, I find your views fascinating even if I don't share them.
I know this is three days later but I just saw your comment and wanted to leave a reply (though it may never be seen.)
>Essentially, I'm asking you to consider these two farmers "in a vacuum" such that their wealth is due entirely to their own actions and not to any outside forces. Absolutely nothing left to chance, or "luck." By my definition of the word at least.
I don't think it's enough to refute this by simply saying that 'people don't live in a vacuum' as others might. I think it's actually impossible to conceive of a person 'in a vacuum.' I reject this sort of individualistic view of a person in favor of a more communitarian view - which is to say a person is made up of their social attachments and environment as much as those social attachments and environments are made up of individuals. It's impossible to conceive of a person in a vacuum for the same reason it's impossible to conceive of a cat that's a dog. A 'person in a vacuum' just isn't a person.
>They are twin brothers and received the same upbringing. One of the farmers tends his lands diligently while the other is concerned with other aspects of life and only does the bare minimum to survive. As you might expect, over time the first farmer prospers due to the hard work he has put in to cultivate his lands while the second farmer stagnates because he has prioritized other matters. They both understood the benefits of tending to land diligently from their shared upbringing, but they made different decisions for whatever reason.
You seem to posit that they are exactly the same in upbringing and everything but then behave differently. What do you believe is the source of this differing behavior? If we traced it back far enough would we eventually reach a point where it becomes apparent that this difference originated in 'a thing' which the farmers had no control over? I believe so.
But I think the whole point is that we don’t live in a vacuum.
The farmers for example. Since the first farmer has healthy crops, insects would probably be more attracted to his lands, therefore a higher chance of his crops being tainted or destroyed. He could put all that work in and end up no better off than the second farmer due to circumstances entirely out of his control.
Not to say he shouldn’t put that work in, but there is always an element of luck in anything that “works out” for you or me.
> Do you think someone has a claim to wealth that they earned entirely due to luck?
First off, this is a difficult question to answer because it seems yours and my definitions of "luck" are not the same. Or perhaps they are the same but we view the surrounding context and their individual manifestations as dissimilar.
I would say it depends on the situation. For example, If I'm walking through the parking lot and by chance (luck) find a $20 bill on the ground, am I deserving of my new found wealth? On a good day, I might turn it in to the nearest department store and hope it finds its way back to its original owner. If I'm feeling more cynical (or, arguably, realistic) I would just keep it.
Am I deserving of this wealth? I didn't really work for it, so I would argue, "no, not really." But then again I wouldn't really fault myself (or anyone else) for keeping it either.
On the other hand, let us consider two farmers who live near one another. They are twin brothers and received the same upbringing. One of the farmers tends his lands diligently while the other is concerned with other aspects of life and only does the bare minimum to survive. As you might expect, over time the first farmer prospers due to the hard work he has put in to cultivate his lands while the second farmer stagnates because he has prioritized other matters. They both understood the benefits of tending to land diligently from their shared upbringing, but they made different decisions for whatever reason.
Essentially, I'm asking you to consider these two farmers "in a vacuum" such that their wealth is due entirely to their own actions and not to any outside forces. Absolutely nothing left to chance, or "luck." By my definition of the word at least.
So, is your definition of luck different from mine such that you would argue the first farmer's success is still due to luck, or am I missing something else?
And thanks for the conversation, I find your views fascinating even if I don't share them.