値する

関: worth、worthy

WordNet

be worthy or deserving; "You deserve a promotion after all the hard work you have done" (同)merit
having a specified value; "not worth his salt"; "worth her weight in gold"
an indefinite quantity of something having a specified value; "10 dollars worth of gasoline"
the quality that renders something desirable or valuable or useful
any admirable quality or attribute; "work of great merit" (同)virtue
having worth or merit or value; being honorable or admirable; "a worthy fellow"; "a worthy cause"
an important, honorable person (word is often used humorously); "he told his story to some conservative worthies"; "local worthies rarely challenged the chief constable"
having qualities or abilities that merit recognition in some way; "behavior worthy of reprobation"; "a fact worthy of attention"
not deserved or earned; "has an undeserved reputation as a coward"
as deserved; "he chalked up two goals which deservedly gave Bolton their second victory of the season"
in an unmerited manner; "the team chalked up another victory, the last one quite undeservedly, in my opinion"
worthy of being treated in a particular way; "an idea worth considering"; "the deserving poor" (often used ironically) (同)worth

PrepTutorEJDIC

〈賞罰・評価など〉‘に'『値する』,‘を'受ける価値がある(進行形にできない) / (…を)『受けるに足る』《+『of』+『名』》
(…するだけの)『価値がある』,(するに)値する《+名(doing)》 / (…の)『値打ちがある』,(…と)同じ価値の《+名》 / (…だけの)財産を持つ《+名》 / (人・物事の)『真価』,価値 / (金銭的な)『価値』,値打ち / (金額相当の)分量 / 富,財産
〈U〉『価値』,優秀さ;〈C〉《しばしば複数形で》(賞賛・ほうびに値する)功績,手柄,美点 / 〈C〉《複数形で》(訴訟などで,物事の)理非(問題になっている事柄そのものの良し悪し,ありのままの事実) / 〈賞・罰・非難など〉‘に'値する
『価値のある』,尊敬するべき / お偉方,名士,ごりっぱな人
(賞罰・批判などを)受けるに値しない,不当な
当然,正当に
(…に)値する《+『of』+『名』》 / 援助(奨学金など)を受ける資格のある

Wikipedia preview

出典(authority):フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』「2015/05/28 22:34:28」(JST)

wiki en

[Wiki en表示]

Desert /dɨˈzɜrt/ in philosophy is the condition of being deserving of something, whether good or bad.

Nomenclature

The word is related to justice, revenge, blame, punishment and many topics central to moral philosophy, also "moral desert". In the English language, the word "desert" with this meaning tends to be a rather uncommon word colloquially where it is almost exclusively collocated in the popular phrase one's just deserts (e.g. "Although she was not at first arrested for the crime, she later on received her just deserts.").

In ordinary usage, to deserve is to earn or merit a reward; in philosophy, the distinction is drawn in the term desert to include the case that that which one receives as one's just deserts may well be unwelcome, or a reward. For example, if one scratches off a winning lottery ticket, one may be entitled to the money, but one does not necessarily deserve it in the same way one would deserve $5 for mowing a lawn, or a round of applause for performing a solo.

General formula

A general formula for desert claims is this: Thing A deserves X in virtue of Y. For example, I (A) deserve a good grade on my test (X) because I studied hard (Y); Cincinnati (A) deserves to be praised (X) because it is a pretty city (Y). Some authors have added a further criterion, qualifying Y. That is, Agent A deserves X in virtue of Y if and only if A is responsible for Y (or, alternatively, if A is also deserving of Y). Considering this stipulation, one does not deserve respect simply because one is a human being, because one is not responsible for being a human being (Y). Arguments such as this are understandably contentious as they suggest an untenability of intrinsic desert claims—that is, claims wherein Y means simply to be A. Less controversially, if one (A) uses steroids to win in a footrace, one is said not to deserve to win (X) because one is not responsible for, and so does not deserve, one's enhanced physical abilities (Y).

Rawls and Nozick

One of the most controversial rejections of the concept of desert was made by the political philosopher John Rawls. Rawls, writing in the mid to late twentieth century, claimed that a person cannot claim credit for being born with greater natural endowments (such as superior intelligence or athletic abilities), as it is purely the result of the 'natural lottery'. Therefore, that person does not morally deserve the fruits of his or her talents and/or efforts, such as a good job or a high salary. However, Rawls was careful to explain that, even though he dismissed the concept of moral Desert, people can still legitimately expect to receive the benefits of their efforts and/or talents. The distinction here lies between Desert and, in Rawls' own words, 'Legitimate Expectations'.^[1]

Rawls' remarks about natural endowments provoked an often-referred response by Robert Nozick. Nozick claimed that to treat peoples' natural talents as collective assets is to contradict the very basis of the deontological liberalism Rawls wishes to defend, i.e. respect for the individual and the distinction between persons.^[2] Nozick argued that Rawls' suggestion that not only natural talents but also virtues of character are undeserved aspects of ourselves for which we cannot take credit, "can succeed in blocking the introduction of a person's autonomous choices and actions (and their results) only by attributing everything noteworthy about the person completely to certain sorts of 'external' factors. So denigrating a person's autonomy and prime responsibility for his actions is a risky line to take for a theory that otherwise wishes to buttress the dignity and self-respect of autonomous beings."^[3]

Nozick's critique has been interpreted in two different ways: The conventional understanding of it is as a libertarian assessment of procedural justice which maintains that while it might be true that peoples' actions are, in whole or in part, determined by factors that are morally arbitrary this is irrelevant to assignments of distributive shares.^[4] The reason for this is that individuals are self-owners with inviolable rights in their bodies and talents, and they have the freedom to take advantage of these regardless of whether the self-owned properties are theirs for reasons that are morally arbitrary or not.

Jean Hampton

Another, more unconventional interpretation of Nozick's critique is represented by Jean Hampton. She points out that there seems to be a subterranean assumption in Nozick's rejection of Rawls' account of natural endowments as collective assets. This assumption is the idea that the choices individuals make regarding how they will use their labor and their property are ones for which they should be held responsible. People who do not work hard and invest imprudently should be held responsible for those choices and not receive assistance from an egalitarian welfare state. If they do work hard and invest well however, they should also be held responsible for those choices and allowed to reap the benefits from their strivings. Hampton asks the question "whether the ground of Nozick's conception of absolute rights is not only a conception of liberty but also a conception of moral responsibility that is […] closely associated to our notion of liberty."^[5]

While Hampton's interpretation of Nozick is unconventional, there are indeed other political philosophers who endorse the position she outlines. Their main observation is that sometimes people who are badly off might be so because of their own irresponsible conduct, and the charge is that theories favoring policies of redistribution of resources from individuals who are better off to those worse off ignore this crucial point, i.e. that people might be unequally deserving on account of their willful conduct.^[6]

Consequences

Sometimes the claim is that the redistributive systems often favored by egalitarian political theorists might have disastrous consequences in that they promote sloth and allow free riding on the productive by the lazy. These arguments are instrumental in their appeal to undeservingness. They refer to the allegedly bad consequences of a redistributive social system and do not necessarily involve any reference to the moral worthiness of those who make greater efforts, wiser investments, and so on.

At other times however, the argument invokes a moral ideal holding desert valuable for its own sake. On this view, helping the undeserving and failing to help the deserving is deemed intrinsically unfair regardless of further consequences.^[7] For example, the charge against Rawls is that people actually might deserve the gains flowing from their natural endowments, or at least those they achieve by striving conscientiously.^[8]

References

^ See Rawls, John (1972), A Theory of Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press
^ Nozick, Robert (1974), Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York: Basic Books, p. 228
^ Nozick, Robert (1974), Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York: Basic Books, p. 214
^ Levine, Andrew (1999), "Rewarding Effort", The Journal of Political Philosophy 7: 404-418, at p. 406f.
^ Hampton, Jean (1997), Political Philosophy, Oxford: Westview Press, p. 150
^ Cf. Kekes, John (1997) Against Liberalism, New York: Cornell University Press, p. 132f.
^ Cf. Arneson, Richard J. (1997), "Egalitarianism and the Undeserving Poor", The Journal of Political Philosophy 5: 327-350, at pp. 330f.
^ Cf. Kernohan, Andrew (1993), "Desert and Self-Ownership", Journal of Value Inquiry 27: 197-202, at p. 202

External links

Desert entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

UpToDate Contents

全文を閲覧するには購読必要です。 To read the full text you will need to subscribe.

1. 高血圧治療と患者のアドヒアランス patient adherence and the treatment of hypertension
2. ダニ麻痺症 tick paralysis
3. もやもや病：治療および予後 moyamoya disease treatment and prognosis
4. 成人における高血圧の初期評価 initial evaluation of the hypertensive adult
5. QT延長症候群の病態生理 pathophysiology of the long qt syndrome

English Journal

Comparative toxicity of new halophenolic DBPs in chlorinated saline wastewater effluents against a marine alga: Halophenolic DBPs are generally more toxic than haloaliphatic ones.

Liu J1, Zhang X2.
Water research.Water Res.2014 Nov 15;65:64-72. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.07.024. Epub 2014 Jul 23.
Using seawater for toilet flushing effectively reduces the consumption of precious freshwater resources, yet it introduces bromide and iodide ions into a wastewater treatment system, which may form bromo- and iodo-disinfection byproducts (DBPs) during chlorination of the wastewater effluent. Most of
PMID 25090624

Myositis registries and biorepositories: powerful tools to advance clinical, epidemiologic and pathogenic research.

Rider LG1, Dankó K, Miller FW.
Current opinion in rheumatology.Curr Opin Rheumatol.2014 Nov;26(6):724-41. doi: 10.1097/BOR.0000000000000119.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Clinical registries and biorepositories have proven extremely useful in many studies of diseases, especially rare diseases. Given their rarity and diversity, the idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, or myositis syndromes, have benefited from individual researchers' collections of c
PMID 25225838

The application of chitosan and benzothiadiazole in vineyard (Vitis vinifera L. cv Groppello Gentile) changes the aromatic profile and sensory attributes of wine.

Vitalini S1, Ruggiero A2, Rapparini F3, Neri L4, Tonni M5, Iriti M6.
Food chemistry.Food Chem.2014 Nov 1;162:192-205. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.04.040. Epub 2014 Apr 18.
This work reports the effects of resistance inducers on wine aroma compounds and sensory attributes. Resistance inducers are a class of products able to elicit the plant defence mechanisms against pathogens, incurring lower toxicological risks than conventional agrochemicals. Among them, chitosan (C
PMID 24874376

Comparative genotoxicity of nanosilver in human liver HepG2 and colon Caco2 cells evaluated by a flow cytometric in vitro micronucleus assay.

Sahu SC1, Njoroge J, Bryce SM, Yourick JJ, Sprando RL.
Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.J Appl Toxicol.2014 Nov;34(11):1226-34. doi: 10.1002/jat.3065. Epub 2014 Sep 16.
Two widely used in vitro cell culture models, human liver HepG2 cells and human colon Caco2 cells, and flow cytometry techniques were evaluated as tools for rapid screening of potential genotoxicity of food-related nanosilver. Comparative genotoxic potential of 20 nm silver was evaluated in HepG2
PMID 25224830

Japanese Journal

「瑞宝中綬章」受章! おめでとうございます

新潟リハビリテーション大学紀要 = Niigata University of Rehabilitation bulletin 5(1), 103-105, 2016-12
NAID 40021052903

高額長期疾病の医療費補助制度における倫理的問題

国際研究論叢 = OIU journal of international studies : 大阪国際大学・大阪国際大学短期大学部紀要 30(1), 87-100, 2016-10
NAID 120005892583

Physical Activity and the Built Environment in Residential Neighborhoods of Seoul and Seattle:<br>An Empirical Study Based on Housewives′ GPS Walking Data and Travel Diaries

Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering 15(3), 471-478, 2016
NAID 130005414922

Physical Exercise and Aging: Appraisal and Reappraisal

バイオフィリア 2016(2), 25-25, 2016
NAID 130005169881

Related Pictures

★リンクテーブル★

リンク元	「merit」「worth」「worthy」「値する」

「merit」

　　[★]

n.

利点、メリット

vi.

(評価などに)値する、報い

vt.

(賞、罰、非難など)～の評価に値する、～に値する(=deserve)。[SV doing]～するに値する。

The benefits observed here merit further investigation in a larger trial in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with different presenting rhythms.

関

advantage、benefit