Is meritocracy a subtle form of eugenics?

[sayak83]

"It is incorrect that individuals with greater natural endowments and the superior character that has made their development possible have a right to a cooperative scheme that enables them to obtain even further benefits in ways that do not contribute to the advantages of others. We do not deserve our place in the distribution of native endowments, any more than we deserve our initial starting place in society...

The appropriate principles of justice will not lead to a meritocratic society. This form of social order … uses equality of opportunity as a way of releasing men’s energies in the pursuit of economic prosperity and political dominion. … The culture of the poorer strata is impoverished while that of the governing and technocratic elite is securely based on the service of the national ends of power and wealth. Equality of opportunity means an equal chance to leave the less fortunate behind in the personal quest for influence and social position."
​

- John Rawls (b. 1921, d. 2002) was an American political philosopher in the liberal tradition​

Was John Rawls right about meritocracy? ​

​

Often, meritocracy is touted these days as the loftiest ideal of a perfectly just social order in which everybody gets what they deserve based upon their "natural" talents and aptitudes, rather than social class at birth.

This is set against the old-fashioned feudal idea of a society structured according to heredity and fortunate social privilege ("the luck of the draw"), such as inherited titles or hereditary monarchy, in favour of one aligned (in theory at least) according to mobility: that is, high-IQ plus hard graft.

Meritocracy is supposed to engineer both a more productive society - since the most able and talented at a given role are rewarded to that end, "government by the best" as opposed to government by those of noble birth (who might not be the most able to rule) - and to be inherently egalitarian.

The great liberal political theorist John Rawls thought that we'd got meritocracy all wrong. Badly.

In his eyes, "the ordering of institutions is always defective because the distribution of natural talents and the contingencies of social circumstance are [both] unjust".

It's basically forgotten in most quarters in the 21st century that meritocracy was coined as a pejorative word, an essentially dystopian idea. In his book Meritocratic Education and Social Worthlessness (Palgrave, 2012), the philosopher Khen Lampert argued that educational meritocracy is nothing but a post-modern version of social Darwinism.

In the end according to this mode of thought, meritocracy either belies itself from the offing and is used as a cover for ingrained social inequalities (since we don't all start out with the same "elite" education, healthcare, exposure to opportunities, social networks etc.) or it leads to a new "under-class", in which the poor are viewed as rightfully deprived because they allegedly lack the natural talents or work ethic to succeed - which means we should just leave them behind, because they aren't productive citizens.

What do you think?

It's not meritocracy that is bad. It's the combination of meritocracy with selfish individualism, i.e., libertarian meritocracy, that is bad. When one's merit is used for the benefit of the community as a whole, and when an individual is rewarded and honored when, and only when, he uses his talents for the visible benefit of the community and the greater world...then we have the institution of ethical or Dharmic meritocracy, that can truly be beneficial.

 

[Estro Felino]

What Pope Francis says is obviously just, but he forgets to mention what a state can do to better the principle of social equality. I think the socialist state should put these principles into action.

1) People are unique so they all have distinct attitudes and capabilities

2) Manual labor is more valuable than intellectual labor, so it should be paid more and not less. A baker contributes to society as much as a lawyer, if not more.

3) It's the profit maximization present in the private sector that kills employment.

4) The state should forge a kind of Capitalism that is compatible with the socialist policy of the state, even if it implies to use authoritarian means

I don't believe in authoritarian means.

I would appreciate if you commented on this spurious quotation by Thomas Jefferson.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs

 

[sayak83]

What Pope Francis says is obviously just, but he forgets to mention what a state can do to better the principle of social equality. I think the socialist state should put these principles into action.

1) People are unique so they all have distinct attitudes and capabilities

2) Manual labor is more valuable than intellectual labor, so it should be paid more and not less. A baker contributes to society as much as a lawyer, if not more.

3) It's the profit maximization present in the private sector that kills employment.

4) The state should forge a kind of Capitalism that is compatible with the socialist policy of the state, even if it implies to use authoritarian means

I don't believe in authoritarian means. Also it's unclear why manual labor, is by default more valuable? Labor and effort, on whatever front, can be valued based on how much benefit it provides the general community, and the reward should be based on that.

 

[sayak83]

"It is incorrect that individuals with greater natural endowments and the superior character that has made their development possible have a right to a cooperative scheme that enables them to obtain even further benefits in ways that do not contribute to the advantages of others. We do not deserve our place in the distribution of native endowments, any more than we deserve our initial starting place in society...

The appropriate principles of justice will not lead to a meritocratic society. This form of social order … uses equality of opportunity as a way of releasing men’s energies in the pursuit of economic prosperity and political dominion. … The culture of the poorer strata is impoverished while that of the governing and technocratic elite is securely based on the service of the national ends of power and wealth. Equality of opportunity means an equal chance to leave the less fortunate behind in the personal quest for influence and social position."
​

- John Rawls (b. 1921, d. 2002) was an American political philosopher in the liberal tradition​

Was John Rawls right about meritocracy? ​

​

Often, meritocracy is touted these days as the loftiest ideal of a perfectly just social order in which everybody gets what they deserve based upon their "natural" talents and aptitudes, rather than social class at birth.

This is set against the old-fashioned feudal idea of a society structured according to heredity and fortunate social privilege ("the luck of the draw"), such as inherited titles or hereditary monarchy, in favour of one aligned (in theory at least) according to mobility: that is, high-IQ plus hard graft.

Meritocracy is supposed to engineer both a more productive society - since the most able and talented at a given role are rewarded to that end, "government by the best" as opposed to government by those of noble birth (who might not be the most able to rule) - and to be inherently egalitarian.

The great liberal political theorist John Rawls thought that we'd got meritocracy all wrong. Badly.

In his eyes, "the ordering of institutions is always defective because the distribution of natural talents and the contingencies of social circumstance are [both] unjust".

It's basically forgotten in most quarters in the 21st century that meritocracy was coined as a pejorative word, an essentially dystopian idea. In his book Meritocratic Education and Social Worthlessness (Palgrave, 2012), the philosopher Khen Lampert argued that educational meritocracy is nothing but a post-modern version of social Darwinism.

In the end according to this mode of thought, meritocracy either belies itself from the offing and is used as a cover for ingrained social inequalities (since we don't all start out with the same "elite" education, healthcare, exposure to opportunities, social networks etc.) or it leads to a new "under-class", in which the poor are viewed as rightfully deprived because they allegedly lack the natural talents or work ethic to succeed - which means we should just leave them behind, because they aren't productive citizens.

What do you think?

More thoughts.

Exhibit A that shows USA is far from meritocracy is Mr. Trump

The 64 most outrageous lines from Donald Trump's untethered Pennsylvania speech - CNNPolitics

It's difficult to properly assess meritocracy for merits and demerits (sic) when it's not there in the first place.

Second, how can a society be meritocratic unless all children are given adequate means to develop their merit? That's not happening today, obviously.

 

[PureX]

Who is deciding what has merit in this meritocracy? And how does their decision not become just another expression of self-interest?

 

[YmirGF]

Nonsense.

One should remember that Adam Smith, the so-called father of capitalism, who wrote the Wealth of Nations, also wrote a book entitled The Theory of Moral Sentiments. In his day, economics was viewed as a moral science.

The crux of Smith’s theory of social justice developed in Moral Sentiments lies at the heart of his economics in Wealth of Nations: “To hurt in any degree the interest of any one order of citizens, for no other purpose but to promote that of some other, is evidently contrary to that justice and equality of treatment which the sovereign owes to all the different orders of his subjects” (WN IV.viii.30).

For a genuinely free market to exist in the first place, you need a culture defined by an ethical framework that enshrines individual economic freedoms - such as private property - as inalienable rights within the context of a limited government (all of which I myself support) and respect for the individual pursuit of happiness.

Economics is not a value-free science. In her social doctrine, my Church insists that the separation of economics and morals is wrong and unwise. She insists that the classical and traditional link between morals and economics not be forgotten. "The Church's social doctrine insists on the moral connotations of the economy. The moral dimension of the economy shows that economic efficiency and the promotion of human development in solidarity are not two separate or alternative aims but one indivisible goal." (Compendium, No. 330).

if capitalism is defined to exclude morals and values, it is not something I can approve of. Sadly, as you have demonstrated above, this is how it is commonly defined nowadays.

For all I disliked her views, Margaret Thatcher understood that capitalism was fundamentally inseparable from questions about moral values. She just had skewed moral values in my opinion.

Sorry @Vouthon but I'm only 62 and have rarely ever heard anyone connect capitalism with morality in the real world. From my non-Catholic view, I'm not particularly interested in what the Church's position is on the matter. Although Smith may have originally connected the two, morality is far too subjective a thing to dovetail to economics, in general. I suppose, in many ways, the Church's goal is to erase that sense of individual morality by replacing it with their mandated moral judgment. In that sense the Pope's rantings do make more sense, at least to Catholics.

Fortunately, we don't live in a meritocracy, in a literal sense, though we do recognize achievement in broader terms.

 

[Curious George]

Sorry @Vouthon but I'm only 62 and have rarely ever heard anyone connect capitalism with morality in the real world. From my non-Catholic view, I'm not particularly interested in what the Church's position is on the matter. Although Smith may have originally connected the two, morality is far too subjective a thing to dovetail to economics, in general. I suppose, in many ways, the Church's goal is to erase that sense of individual morality by replacing it with their mandated moral judgment. In that sense the Pope's rantings do make more sense, at least to Catholics.

Fortunately, we don't live in a meritocracy, in a literal sense, though we do recognize achievement in broader terms.

I would suggest that although you may have never associated it with ethics and morals, it has been every step of the way.

Anytime you are dealing in shoulds and oughts, there is likely a moral judgement at the core.

 

[Vouthon]

Sorry @Vouthon but I'm only 62 and have rarely ever heard anyone connect capitalism with morality in the real world. From my non-Catholic view, I'm not particularly interested in what the Church's position is on the matter. Although Smith may have originally connected the two, morality is far too subjective a thing to dovetail to economics, in general. I suppose, in many ways, the Church's goal is to erase that sense of individual morality by replacing it with their mandated moral judgment. In that sense the Pope's rantings do make more sense, at least to Catholics.

Fortunately, we don't live in a meritocracy, in a literal sense, though we do recognize achievement in broader terms.

I'm giving you the Church's position only to illustrate why my stance must differ from yours on this matter, not because I think you'll take notice of it.

It's not a matter of erasing individual moral judgement but making sure that economics is kept within the standards expected by the moral norms of wider society.

If you don't think its legitimate for a government to interfere with fair and free competition, or for a person to restrict fair and free competition to their own benefit , then you are making a moral judgement - a judgement that is a necessary prerequisite for a market economy to function in the first place.

Unless, of course, one believes in crony capitalism.

The human person is at the heart of the market, so the morality of the market is rooted in the morality of the people involved. As the philosopher Peter Koslowski stated: "The economy is governed not only by economic laws, but is also determined by men..."

Hence why Pope Francis has criticised the spectre of "the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose,” (No. 55).

 

[YmirGF]

Anytime you are dealing in shoulds and oughts, there is likely a moral judgement at the core.

I definitely disagree on the morality side although, obviously, judgment is a key factor. I think the slippery slope here is that morality is predominantly subjective. It is different for everyone. Some of us are pretty footloose and fancy free in the morality department and judgmental reactions are somewhat neutralized due to this laissez-faire attitude. That does not mean, as @Vouthon suggests, that I might be a fan of crony capitalism either. I guess I just bridle at being forced into particular boxes that are designed to further given narratives.

As @sayak83 rightly pointed out, like in most things, a merit based system is not a bad thing if it is not taken to extremes. Heck, the Pope, himself, was chosen on a merit based system, so he is being somewhat hypocritical pointing out the plank in the eyes of others without noting his own accomplishment.

 

[sayak83]

Who is deciding what has merit in this meritocracy? And how does their decision not become just another expression of self-interest?

It's decided at an organizational and community level... schools, universities, sports, movie and literature awards, polls or even yelp reviews.

 

[PureX]

It's decided at an organizational and community level... schools, universities, sports, movie and literature awards, polls or even yelp reviews.

No, someone has to collate all this meritorious anointing, and then use it to disseminate resources and opportunities. Which is supposedly what governments are for, but we've already seen how easily that falls into corruption. So I'm asking what authority or institutional mechanism is going to take the government's place in this 'meritocracy'. And what's going to prevent it from becoming just as corrupted by self-interest as our governments have all become?

 

[sayak83]

No, someone has to collate all this meritorious anointing, and then use it to disseminate resources and opportunities. Which is supposedly what governments are for, but we've already seen how easily that falls into corruption. So I'm asking what authority or institutional mechanism is going to take the government's place in this 'meritocracy'. And what's going to prevent it from becoming just as corrupted by self-interest as our governments have all become?

No. The institutions get funding from the govt. Then these institutions disburse these within themselves in accordance with merit. The amount of funding competing institutions gain from govt. or private sources depends again on their relative merit as perceived by the society. Thus the system is decentralized.

 

[Mister Emu]

Resources aren't unlimited.

No, but the claim that anyone knows when humanity will reach overpopulation has been repeatedly shown to be pretense.

Capitalism's status quo can only continue at this point if millions of people die. That is the hard fact of the matter.

There is no such fact. You have no idea what resource optimization will look like in the future, and if we begin the colonization of space, we would have access to virtually unlimited resources.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

No, but the claim that anyone knows when humanity will reach overpopulation has been repeatedly shown to be pretense.

If it's a pretense, why do economic specialists talk about it so much? I guess they have no idea what they're talking about?

There is no such fact. You have no idea what resource optimization will look like in the future, and if we begin the colonization of space, we would have access to virtually unlimited resources.

That's a hypothetical. It doesn't let us off the hook in handling our present situation. Besides there are more problems to meritocracy than just the economic factors.

 

[PureX]

No. The institutions get funding from the govt. Then these institutions disburse these within themselves in accordance with merit. The amount of funding competing institutions gain from govt. or private sources depends again on their relative merit as perceived by the society. Thus the system is decentralized.

So we're talking about some fantasy government that does not become corrupted by it's own self-interested idea of "merit", then.

 

[sayak83]

So we're talking about some fantasy government that does not become corrupted by it's own self-interested idea of "merit", then.

Yes. It's called democracy with checks and balances.

 

[HonestJoe]

No social system is perfect and any is only as good as its implementation. None can be established in isolation and trying to do so (or pretending it is the case) is a recipe for disaster.

Meritocracy as a general principle has a lot going for it and many of the issues highlighted is in its flawed implementation. It’s very often selectively implemented, such as only recognising the merit of academic and intellectual ability and largely ignoring practical ability and experience or dismissing entire subgroups, not giving anyone within them equal (or any) opportunity to demonstrate individual merit. Another issue is that while individuals may well have the ability to excel in a given role, nothing forces them to actually choose to put in the effort or focus on general benefit to the whole.

I think a general issue with this kind of thing is looking at it as some kind of high-minded philosophical concept, making it much bigger and more complex than it needs to be. If you just take it as a basic level of common sense, it should be obviously that the people who are best at a particular role or task (regardless of how or why), they should do it. Maybe there is a wider social issue in that ability to do some things is given much more value and credit that ability to do some others.

 

[Mister Emu]

If it's a pretense, why do economic specialists talk about it so much? I guess they have no idea what they're talking about?

With regards to the future even a decade away? No, they don't have any idea. Multiple studies across numerous fields(from agriculture, to politics, to technology) show that experts are, at most, little better than chance when attempting to predict the future.

That's a hypothetical.

As is the doom. We should not destroy all of our resources in expectation of more, nor should we stunt human advancement for fear of running out.

Besides there are more problems to meritocracy than just the economic factors.

This is true.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Multiple studies across numerous fields(from agriculture, to politics, to technology) show that experts are, at most, little better than chance when attempting to predict the future.

I'll be waiting to see conservatives eat such words when our economy tanks again thanks to the Trump plan. Not that I expect conservatives to ever admit they mess up.

As is the doom.

No, sadly. Lack of resources is not a hypothetical. All the money for the ultra wealthy comes from somewhere, and it comes from what improves quality of life for the other classes.

 

[cladking]

Our idiocracy works just fine and then we will all die.