3 ms·
Everyone claims they like meritocracy. Then they realise Merit is smarts, hardwork and luck. And they don't have all those. So why would they actually want a me
by LatteLazy 5y ago
Everyone claims they like meritocracy. Then they realise Merit is smarts, hardwork and luck. And they don't have all those. So why would they actually want a meritocracy anymore than a non-king wants a monarchy?
- julienreszka 5y agoAesthetics, mortality, justice, ethics. There are many reasons.
- LatteLazy 5y agoFor 1% of people those might matter more than self interest. But good luck building a majority on them to support meritocracy.
- smt88 5y agoBy definition, merit is not luck. That's the crux of the issue: luck is far more important than intelligence or hard work, and many people become fantastically successful with only luck (often by being born into a wealthy family).
- kiba 5y agoLuck determines what genes you have and weather or not your parents care about education. It's an inseparable part of life.
- imtringued 5y agoThis is the crab mentality (if I can't have it, neither can you).
- smt88 5y agoYes. Another reason merit is an impossible thing to measure.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- faeriechangling 5y agoI would argue merit is luck. Intelligence is mostly luck. Taller basketball players have more merit and height is luck based. How is it coherent that generational wealth in an invalid in determining merit because it's luck based but intelligence is valid in determining merit despite being luck based? If you have a determinist outlook luck and merit are inseparable.
- smt88 5y agoYou're making a semantic distinction, but I agree with your concept. I personally believe everything is luck and people's wellbeing shouldn't be defined by "merit" (luck) or luck.