The question
The principle of equal consideration says harms of the same size count the same. But someone could ask: "What about deserving? Isn't it sometimes fair for someone to suffer more because they did something wrong?"
An example
Imagine two injured people. A is more badly hurt, but got hurt because A attacked B on purpose. B is less badly hurt, and was the victim. Many people would think it's right to help B first.
Would that be an exception to equal consideration?
Deserving depends on equal consideration
The author says no. The idea of deserving needs equal consideration to make sense. We think A shouldn't come first precisely because A disregarded B's good. Deserving exists to protect the rule of taking everyone into account.
Two roles in morality
The text separates two roles someone can have:
- The one who decides and acts. Someone who can understand what they're doing can be held responsible for their choices.
- The one who is affected. Any sentient being can be harmed or helped by other people's choices.
Deserving has to do with the first role: with what someone did. Animals don't choose to do wrong, and neither do babies. They didn't do anything to "deserve" being locked up, hurt, or killed.
In short
- Deserving isn't an exception to equal consideration; it depends on it.
- It applies to those who can be held responsible for what they did.
- Animals didn't do anything to deserve what's done to them.