Moreover, Smith believes that in the real world of American society today, things "…actually turn out quite opposite from the initial statement." In other words, Smith notes that many "criminals" sit in jails and prisons, incarcerated while guilty men who had good lawyers are "free to roam the streets" (Smith, 2010, p. 1). Of course that is a generalization by Smith, but it does seem that every couple weeks new DNA testing shows that the African-American man who was sitting on death row did not do the killing after all, and he is released after 12 years rotting in prison.
Another point Smith makes is that people work hard, sometimes taking two jobs, to make ends meet, and on the other side of town a white collar criminal works a couple hours a week and makes thousands of dollars on some scheme. So, notwithstanding what Pojman posits about good being rewarded and bad getting their just deserts, "…it is not true today that you get what you put out," Smith asserts.
Conclusion
Okay, this is philosophy, so the reader can assume that what Pojman was offering was an argument that the world should function...
As Smith points out, "Is this world possible?" Of course this kind of a world is not possible, nor is it possible to imagine people living in peace because they understand justice and respect others' viewpoints. What Pojman is proposing is a philosophical guideline, a concept, not unlike those that the Christian Bible poses: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Is this possible? Not in every situation, of course, but it is a good thought and even coming close to achieving this goal is a positive step forward.
Works Cited
Smith, Stefany. (2010). Common Misunderstandings in Philosophy: Pojman's Argument for Merit or Desert. Associated Content. Retrieved Nov. 17, 2010, from http://www.associatedcontent.com.
Wilson, Carrie. (2010). Let the punishment fit the crime: The law of just desserts." Helium.
Retrieved Nov. 17, 2010, from http://www.helium.com/items/1440031-merit-dessert/print.
