The two main problems I have with the concept of "meritocracy" are: Incoherent/circular definition: Nobody can actually tell you what merit really is in a spec

The two main problems I have with the concept of "meritocracy" are: Incoherent/circular definition: Nobody can actually tell you what merit really is in a specific way, so we end up just measuring it by existing social status. "This guy made it into Harvard Business School and to F500 CEO, he must have a lot of merit". But maybe he got into Harvard because his rich parents were donors and then leveraged those connections for his CEO job, no merit involved. This thing that is meant to determine social status is measured by social status itself and is thus useless. Meritocracy doesn't fairness or justice or compassion or dignity: Imagine a society which is one big ongoing gladiatorial tournament, meritocracy is defined purely in terms of combat. This would be a very meritocratic society - but would also be a very brutal, unpleasant, and unequal one. If meritocracy can still result in all of those things, what use is it really?