Introduction An ancient tradition in Western and Eastern philosophy indicates that justice is “giving people what they deserve” (Pojman, 2001). Social justice recognizes virtue and vice as two features commonly noted in the human being. The question arises as to whether these are relative. The ways of the modern world have deemed that virtue is to be rewarded and vice is to be punished. Society considers that user behavior must be justly rewarded. The assessment of social justice from a more recent date would appear to be more acceptable. Different philosophers have argued over the concepts of merit and desert. Pojman is one such philosopher whose essay “Merit” is being discussed here. Pojman’s views do not totally agree with mine. Considering the arguments of Pojman and other philosophers, I have decided that modern-day philosophy possibly includes both merit and desert in its concept of social justice. I would like to investigate further into the subject. Thesis statement Both merit and desert have a bearing on social justice in the modern age. Critical review of the Merit essay Pojman points out that the early days of Greek society termed success as military success when merit-based systems existed. The highest noble class, the Agathis, was the usual meritorious one; it was strict meritocracy then. The outcome was more important. Later, Kant considered that intention was to be evaluated for reward, not the outcome. He had thought of the desert-based system or the pre-institutional desert. Rawls spoke of the liberal system or the veil of ignorance. It was argued that reward was unnecessary for anything inherited or came from the family or environment. Pojman defines merit as a “feature or quality that is the basis for distributing positive attribution such as praise, rewards and prizes”. Demerit would then include the punishments and the negative attributes. Non deserved merit would include the inherited abilities. Merit refers to what a person contributes. Desert is involved with an action and how well it has been performed. Anyone can appreciate hard work which has ended in a good result. A person who has overcome poverty through his own efforts of studying well and secured a high-level job must be appreciated for his perseverance. Pojman has provided formulae for merit and desert. The term compensatory desert has been introduced here. It indicated that people who had to undergo evils or misfortune needed to be compensated. This compensatory desert also had a formula. Compensatory desert relates to an unfortunate person having a spot of misfortune like a malignant illness or an accident and needing compensation. Historically oppressed people also need to be compensated. The incident of the Mickey Mantle episode where the popular baseball player jumped the queue in the priority list by virtue of his popularity for a liver transplant was a revelation. Some considered his playing as a contribution to society. There is an argument that says Mantle had the advantage of merit while others considered it desert. The two ideas are in conflict here. The term institutional desert means an entitlement that society makes. Pojman is trying to prove that merit and desert overlap in many instances. This is a viewpoint I agree with, hence the motivation for my thesis. Does reward have to be due to merit? Pojman asks why it could not be due to needs. Society may be using the rewards to encourage further meritorious outcomes and punishments to prevent further bad actions. A society that rewards and punishes survives better and prospers. Occasionally the innocent have to suffer the consequenc