At this point, Pojman’s argument on the utility of desert comes to the fore. According to Pojman (103), a society that endeavours to reward those who do good for the general welfare and to punish those who undermine it has better chances for survival and prosperity than a society that does nor practice these. This is very true. In a sense, when people expect something of value for good conduct, they will generally aspire to be good. Judicial punishment serves social good.
Pojman’s meritocracy philosophy evokes many possibilities in the bigger social realm, that is the world arena. Substituting individuals to nations, the gains of using justice as desert could be magnified to benefit a larger group of people. Although this has been challenged, mainly bordering on political concepts such as sovereignty and independence, and also on philosophical beliefs such as diversity of moral systems in pluralistic societies, an international system of rewards and punishment is in place and may be enhanced through the passage of time, this being possible according to centuries of global experience.
Pojman, Louis. “Justice and Desert.” Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal 1.1. 2001: 88-105
—. “Theories of Equality: A Critical Analysis.” Behavior and Philosophy 2.25 1995. 2 Dec 2008 <http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/lp_equal.html>
Sher, George. “Desert”. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Desert.” First published Tue May 14, 2002; substantive revision Wed Nov 12, 2008. 2 Dec 2008 <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desert/>