Luck and Desert - by Logan Conklin

In response to Nagel's argument that we do not judge people for what they would have done, Richards says that you can treat someone a partiular way based on what you think that individual would do if presented with the opportunity. However, this argument seems to contradict one of his earlier arguments in which he says: "his acting in a way which deserves their rebuking him does not entitle them to rebuke him, since their grounds for believing him to have done so may be inadequate." In the example that Richards gives involving the repairman and how he would have stolen the wallet had he not been under surveillance, the evidence is inadequate and he cannot therefore be judged. In this case, I agree with Nagel and that you "judge people for what they actually do or fail to do, not just for what they would have done if circumstances had been different." Had the repairman not been under surveillance he may well have stolen the wallet but we will never know for sure. Therefore it is not appropriate for that individual to be judged in such a way.