Is meritocracy a subtle form of eugenics?

[Vouthon]

"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?

 

[Vouthon]

Pope Francis' response:

"Capitalism gives a moral cloak to inequality," Pope Francis says at Italian steel plant

"Capitalism gives a moral cloak to inequality," Pope Francis says at Italian steel plant

Cindy Wooden - Catholic News Service May 30, 2017

Pope Francis also warned the workers and business leaders against the highly touted idea of "meritocracy" in the workplace and the economy. The idea, he said, takes a positive, "merit," and "perverts it" by mistaking as merits the "gifts" of talent, education and being born to a family that is not poor.

"Through meritocracy, the new capitalism gives a moral cloak to inequality," because seeing gifts as merit, it distributes advantages or keeps in places disadvantages accordingly, he said. Under such a system, "the poor person is considered undeserving and, therefore, guilty. And if poverty is the fault of the poor, then the rich are exonerated from doing anything."

​

Pastoral visit of the Holy Father Francis to the Archdiocese of Genoa (27 May 2017) – Meeting with the world of work at the Ilva Factory

Pope Francis:

Another “value” that is actually a disvalue is the so-called “meritocracy”. Meritocracy is very appealing because it uses a beautiful word: “merit”; but since it is exploited and used ideologically, it is distorted and perverted. Meritocracy, beyond the good faith of the many who invoke it, is becoming a way of ethically legitimizing inequality. The new capitalism, through meritocracy, gives a moral appearance to inequality because it interprets the talents of people not as a gift: talent is not a gift according to this interpretation: it is a merit, determining a system of cumulative advantages and disadvantages.

Thus, if two children are born differently in terms of talent or social and economic opportunities, the economic world will interpret the different talents as merits and will pay them otherwise. And so, when those two children retire, the inequality between them will be multiplied. A second consequence of the so-called “meritocracy” is the change of the culture of poverty. The poor person is considered undeserving and therefore to blame. And if poverty is the fault of the poor, the rich are exonerated from doing anything.

This is the old logic of Job’s friends, who wanted to convince him that he was guilty of his misfortune. But this is not the logic of the Gospel, it is not the logic of life: meritocracy in the Gospel is instead found in the figure of the older brother in the parable of the prodigal son. He despises his younger brother and thinks he must remain a failure because he deserves it; instead the father thinks no son deserves the acorns that are for the pigs.​

 

[Foxic]

"Capitalism gives a moral cloak to inequality," Pope Francis says at Italian steel plant​

It's not often that I agree with religious people, but on occasion they can be smart.

 

[YmirGF]

It's not often that I agree with religious people, but on occasion they can be smart.

Morality has nothing to do with Capitalism though. How is it even an intelligible quote?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not often that I agree with religious people, but on occasion they can be smart.

This pope more & more says things which convince me he's a boob....& not the good kind.

 

[Estro Felino]

In an Utopian society people should have the possibility to work the job they dream of, to become a professional, if they have studied hard to achieve that.

Labor is a an undeniable right of the person. So the state has the juridic obligation to do anything in order to grant this right, and it must remove all the obstacles that prevent this goal from being achieved.

Of course people will achieve a position according to their merits, so meritocracy is essential.
So., people's position will be different (and not equal) according to a qualitative criterion of their skills.

Art. 4 It. Constitution The Republic recognises the right of all citizens to work and promotes those conditions which render this right effective. Every citizen has the duty, according to personal potential and individual choice, to perform an activity or a function that contributes to the material or spiritual progress of society.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Humanity is like a person walking, and when we walk we fall from one foot and catch ourselves on the other. Similarly a purely capitalist economy is just as faulty as a purely social welfare state. The social welfare state eventually fails as does the purely capitalist state.

 

[PureX]

As human beings, rather than mere dumb animals, one would hope that we could rise above the dictates of philosophical Darwinism. But so far, we humans don't show a lot of promise at doing that. It's sad. Though as I get older, I despair less and less the fact that we will probably render ourselves extinct before this century is over, out of sheer greed and stupidity.

 

[Skwim]

Is meritocracy a subtle form of eugenics?

No.

,​

 

[Vouthon]

Morality has nothing to do with Capitalism

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.

 

[Sunstone]

I think the notion of meritocracy appeals much more to idealists who have their heads in the clouds than it does to politically practical people*. In real life, it is seriously flawed -- as Rawls very well knew. However, it's better than some systems, such as feudalism.

Something to keep in mind here: Unless one is of the opinion that human flourishing and human well-being are for some reason of little or no genuine value, then some form of society that optimizes people's freedom to develop their talents and potentials in responsible ways is far and away preferable to societies that do not optimize such things. Meritocracies are preferable to feudal societies for that reason.







*Politically practical people are not always practical in other ways, nor are people practical in other ways always politically practical -- I used to live on a dorm floor with about 80 engineering students. Immensely practical people in some ways, but so very often politically impractical and naive!

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@Vouthon my problem with meritocracy as a philosopher is that it carries no idea of people having inherent value, much less anything else.

Devaluing life is what makes destructive economics seem reconcilable with one's conscience perhaps. A society based only on such a view of merits is arguably bad also because the human society becomes the only driving ideal. It serves all the more to idolize human beings, drive selfish and individualistic impulses, and says nothing ultimately about well-being of other creatures.

This notion of economy-driven social order is just as imbalanced arguably as any system with only one ideal. Economic-driven order eventually chokes out the idea that humans carry anything inherently worthy about them. It is the opposite of humanism and benevolent social theories. Such a theory was favored and implemented to some degree by the Nazis.

That is not mentioning the other bad effects. It's the dehumanizing that would worry me most- and having people's lives mean nothing more than what they can produce like a yolked donkey.

It falls short of the high estimation the age of enlightenment thinkers had of human beings in formulating reformed democratic principles. It would be another form of what they sought to prevent: making human beings cattle fit for the plow, rather than rule of law.

 

[Vouthon]

I think the notion of meritocracy appeals much more to idealists who have their heads in the clouds than it does to politically practical people*. In real life, it is seriously flawed -- as Rawls very well knew. However, it's better than some systems, such as feudalism.

Something to keep in mind here: Unless one is of the opinion that human flourishing and human well-being are for some reason of little or no genuine value, then some form of society that optimizes people's freedom to develop their talents and potentials in responsible ways is far and away preferable to societies that do not optimize such things. Meritocracies are preferable to feudal societies for that reason.

Good post!

I concur that meritocracy is preferable to feudalism (with its inherited privileges).

And certainly, we need to give individuals the room to develop their talents within a culture which facilitates social mobility and human flourishing. And we need the most able people doing tasks at which they excel, which benefits society as a whole. I think it is positively unethical to try to prevent individuals from fulfilling their potential and doing well for themselves.

But....

I just worry where it might lead in the future, as income inequality grows and the gap between the many versus the few widens. We reach a stage where those with the greater economic, social and cultural capital say, "hey, I posses all these benefits on account of my greater intellect and work ethic as a human being, whereas those poor people are deprived because they didn't work hard enough/grasp opportunities or are just naturally not as bright. So, tough luck."

The idea that a society is structured according to merit - whether realized in practice or not - can create the impression that human worth is defined by ability and success, rather than intrinsic dignity.

You replace the hierarchy of inherited birth privilege, with the hierarchy of inherited trait or IQ privilege. In a feudal society, the poor are poor because the rich, who are rich by an accident of luck and breeding rather than ability, deny them opportunities to move up the social ladder or improve their lot.

Yet in a meritocratic society, if such a thing really existed...the poor would be viewed as poor because they are inherently less able or willing to succeed. It is a vision of a society in which personal biology is everything. If your biology makes you intelligent, handsome, healthy or humorous, you deserve to be above those people whom nature hasn't seen fit to make quite so smart, beautiful, healthy or socially gregarious. And if you are less intelligent, or not as good looking, or sickly, you will fail — indeed, you must fail — and no-one should help you, since its biology baby!

And this could create a whole new philosophy of "natural inequality", and one even harder to break than the old aristocratic order. The most critical danger in a ruthlessly meritocratic society is that those with ability and motivation will be able to rise but leave behind a defeatist underclass.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I think the direction meritocracy is taking in the United States shows it is subtle eugenics. The result of all these cutbacks on welfare programs and health assistance will be the deaths of millions of people. It's easy not to see because it's on a scale so outside one's immediate purview. I've positively determined it's a subtle form of eugenics. I am not certain though it's intended to create a social order, or merely continue Capitalism as it is. As the global and national populations keep rising- Capitalism becomes unsustainable if the rich are going to be living ever more extravagantly.

Resources aren't unlimited. Gandhi said the earth has enough for every man's need, but not his greed. Capitalism's status quo can only continue at this point if millions of people die. That is the hard fact of the matter. I appeal to people's conscience, but often find myself disappointed.

This desensitization toward the well-being of others has been happening for some time now. At least 50 years. It's farther along than we think. It started IMO when people have no reason for being besides consumerism, and no beliefs about anything. Putting man under a new yolk. That's precisely what it is.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

"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?

This is pure crap. My self fulfillment is directly related to who I am and does not involve subverting that to please others just to help them have a false sense of security.

 

[Vouthon]

This is pure crap. My self fulfillment is directly related to who I am and does not involve subverting that to please others just to help them have a false sense of security.

No one's suggesting there is anything wrong with your own self-fulfilment.

However, there's also the common good and one's obligations to others.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No one's suggesting there is anything wrong with your own self-fulfilment.

However, there's also the common good and one's obligations to others.

That is part of my self fulfillment. Life, for me, is much more harmonious when others find harmony. It's this kind of interaction I seek without having to deny myself or have others deny themselves.

 

[Vouthon]

I think the direction meritocracy is taking in the United States shows it is subtle eugenics. The result of all these cutbacks on welfare programs and health assistance will be the deaths of millions of people. It's easy not to see because it's on a scale so outside one's immediate purview. I've positively determined it's a subtle form of eugenics. I am not certain though it's intended to create a social order, or merely continue Capitalism as it is. As the global and national populations keep rising- Capitalism becomes unsustainable if the rich are going to be living ever more extravagantly.

Resources aren't unlimited. Gandhi said the earth has enough for every man's need, but not his greed. Capitalism's status quo can only continue at this point if millions of people die. That is the hard fact of the matter. I appeal to people's conscience, but often find myself disappointed.

This desensitization toward the well-being of others has been happening for some time now. At least 50 years. It's farther along than we think. It started IMO when people have no reason for being besides consumerism, and no beliefs about anything. Putting man under a new yolk. That's precisely what it is.

Another great post!

When you factor in future advances in Biotechnology and the rise of AI (which could render billions jobless in the decades to come), the stakes are raised potentially even higher.

As explained by Yuval Noah Harari (professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind):

Are we about to witness the most unequal societies in history?

Are we about to witness the most unequal societies in history?

Yuval Noah Harari

Throughout history, the rich and the aristocratic always imagined they had superior skills to everybody else, which is why they were in control. As far as we can tell, this wasn’t true. The average duke wasn’t more talented than the average peasant: he owed his superiority only to unjust legal and economic discrimination. However, by 2100, the rich might really be more talented, more creative and more intelligent than the slum-dwellers. Once a real gap in ability opens between the rich and the poor, it will become almost impossible to close it.

The two processes together – bioengineering coupled with the rise of AI – may result in the separation of humankind into a small class of superhumans, and a massive underclass of “useless” people.

Once the masses lose their economic importance and political power, the state loses at least some of the incentive to invest in their health, education and welfare. It’s very dangerous to be redundant. Your future depends on the goodwill of a small elite. Maybe there is goodwill for a few decades. But in a time of crisis – like climate catastrophe – it would be very tempting, and easy, to toss you overboard.
​

If we define people solely by merit and billions are one day rendered unemployable due to robotics, with talents that are no longer economically productive, where are we going to end up?

We need to think of these things now, rather than after the fact IMHO.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Pope Francis' response:

"Capitalism gives a moral cloak to inequality," Pope Francis says at Italian steel plant

"Capitalism gives a moral cloak to inequality," Pope Francis says at Italian steel plant

Cindy Wooden - Catholic News Service May 30, 2017

Pope Francis also warned the workers and business leaders against the highly touted idea of "meritocracy" in the workplace and the economy. The idea, he said, takes a positive, "merit," and "perverts it" by mistaking as merits the "gifts" of talent, education and being born to a family that is not poor.

"Through meritocracy, the new capitalism gives a moral cloak to inequality," because seeing gifts as merit, it distributes advantages or keeps in places disadvantages accordingly, he said. Under such a system, "the poor person is considered undeserving and, therefore, guilty. And if poverty is the fault of the poor, then the rich are exonerated from doing anything."

​

Pastoral visit of the Holy Father Francis to the Archdiocese of Genoa (27 May 2017) – Meeting with the world of work at the Ilva Factory

Pope Francis:

Another “value” that is actually a disvalue is the so-called “meritocracy”. Meritocracy is very appealing because it uses a beautiful word: “merit”; but since it is exploited and used ideologically, it is distorted and perverted. Meritocracy, beyond the good faith of the many who invoke it, is becoming a way of ethically legitimizing inequality. The new capitalism, through meritocracy, gives a moral appearance to inequality because it interprets the talents of people not as a gift: talent is not a gift according to this interpretation: it is a merit, determining a system of cumulative advantages and disadvantages.

Thus, if two children are born differently in terms of talent or social and economic opportunities, the economic world will interpret the different talents as merits and will pay them otherwise. And so, when those two children retire, the inequality between them will be multiplied. A second consequence of the so-called “meritocracy” is the change of the culture of poverty. The poor person is considered undeserving and therefore to blame. And if poverty is the fault of the poor, the rich are exonerated from doing anything.

This is the old logic of Job’s friends, who wanted to convince him that he was guilty of his misfortune. But this is not the logic of the Gospel, it is not the logic of life: meritocracy in the Gospel is instead found in the figure of the older brother in the parable of the prodigal son. He despises his younger brother and thinks he must remain a failure because he deserves it; instead the father thinks no son deserves the acorns that are for the pigs.​

Pope Francis is a special person.
His ideas and values are sadly absent from the higher levels of our society.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Another great post!

When you factor in future advances in Biotechnology and the rise of AI (which could render billions jobless in the decades to come), the stakes are raised potentially even higher.

As explained by Yuval Noah Harari (professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind):

Are we about to witness the most unequal societies in history?

Are we about to witness the most unequal societies in history?

Yuval Noah Harari

Throughout history, the rich and the aristocratic always imagined they had superior skills to everybody else, which is why they were in control. As far as we can tell, this wasn’t true. The average duke wasn’t more talented than the average peasant: he owed his superiority only to unjust legal and economic discrimination. However, by 2100, the rich might really be more talented, more creative and more intelligent than the slum-dwellers. Once a real gap in ability opens between the rich and the poor, it will become almost impossible to close it.

The two processes together – bioengineering coupled with the rise of AI – may result in the separation of humankind into a small class of superhumans, and a massive underclass of “useless” people.

Once the masses lose their economic importance and political power, the state loses at least some of the incentive to invest in their health, education and welfare. It’s very dangerous to be redundant. Your future depends on the goodwill of a small elite. Maybe there is goodwill for a few decades. But in a time of crisis – like climate catastrophe – it would be very tempting, and easy, to toss you overboard.
​

If we define people solely by merit and billions are one day rendered unemployable due to robotics, with talents that are no longer economically productive, where are we going to end up?

We need to think of these things now, rather than after the fact IMHO.

This is just ideological bs. No matter an individual's place in society we are all just trying to cope. I've chosen a life of poverty which I find strangely freeling, at least to others who chase materialism. Others have struggles, triumphs, needs or fulfiment the same as we all do.