3 ms·

Even this article misses the root injustice of meritocracy. Meritocracy is just another way to grant those born with advantages yet more advantages. The most f

Even this article misses the root injustice of meritocracy. Meritocracy is just another way to grant those born with advantages yet more advantages. The most fortunate people in a meritocracy are those born smarter and with greater capacity to learn, or those born into an environment to foster a mental framework that lends itself to success. Meritocracy rewards the fortunate with wealth and success just as much as a system that provides power by default to those born into wealth or beauty (though arguably the recipients of the benefit are more diffuse). The real difference on which to select such a system is not a matter of justice then, it's a matter of which one provides better outcomes. Here, I agree with the article. The merits we select for in our version of "Meritocracy" are a poor proxy measurement for a measured and just leader.

zozbot234 6y ago
Meritocracy does not "reward" wealth, beauty or other social advantages (except to the extent that humans will tend to reward those things under any social arrangement whatsoever); it rewards people who make consequential decisions, and are thereby held responsible for those choices. The ideal is that there has to be some sort of flip side to every "reward", so that the arrangement is socially beneficial to all parties.
- DangitBobby 6y ago
  Again, many are born with inherent advantages such as innate intelligence, health, mental stability, and an environment that fosters success. The merit they are capable of developing is made possible by a combination of these things. That being the case, it is inevitable that Meritocracy rewards the fortunate for being fortunate. The difference between Meritocracy and other frameworks to select the powerful is that the people born with the advantages listed above tend to win instead of simply those born into wealth/power/beauty/etc. (Though those with wealth/power/beauty/etc. do actually tend to win anyway because this provides them ways to develop merit or proxies for merit or ways to circumvent merit). There is simply no framework that does not provide someone with certain characteristics systematic advantages to gaining power.

zozbot234 6y ago

Meritocracy does not "reward" wealth, beauty or other social advantages (except to the extent that humans will tend to reward those things under any social arrangement whatsoever); it rewards people who make consequential decisions, and are thereby held responsible for those choices. The ideal is that there has to be some sort of flip side to every "reward", so that the arrangement is socially beneficial to all parties.

DangitBobby 6y ago
Again, many are born with inherent advantages such as innate intelligence, health, mental stability, and an environment that fosters success. The merit they are capable of developing is made possible by a combination of these things. That being the case, it is inevitable that Meritocracy rewards the fortunate for being fortunate. The difference between Meritocracy and other frameworks to select the powerful is that the people born with the advantages listed above tend to win instead of simply those born into wealth/power/beauty/etc. (Though those with wealth/power/beauty/etc. do actually tend to win anyway because this provides them ways to develop merit or proxies for merit or ways to circumvent merit). There is simply no framework that does not provide someone with certain characteristics systematic advantages to gaining power.