4 ms·
Your first and second sentence read as contradictory. Your first sentence suggests that you do think people control their genes and environment, your second sen
by Emma_Goldman 5y ago
Your first and second sentence read as contradictory. Your first sentence suggests that you do think people control their genes and environment, your second sentence admits they don't, but claims this doesn't matter because those things are necessary but not sufficient to earn a lot of money - you say it also requires education and effort. I will assume your second sentence expresses your true belief.
It is controversial (though a widespread belief among philosophers), but I believe that human talent is entirely a function of the interaction of genes and environment. We don't control the neighborhood in which we are born, the school in which we're enrolled, the values instilled in us, or our temperamental inclination to learning. I believe, for similar reasons, that we don't control our own effort. Humans don't stand apart from the naturalistic universe, but are a part of it. Others claim that while genes and environment play the largest role in determining our talents, we also have a degree of volition in those constraints with which to make better or worse use of those conditions, and for which we should be awarded responsibly. Either way, on the strong or weak version, our talents are largely our of our control, and it is therefore unfair to heavily reward or punish people for them.
I'm also extremely sceptical of the idea that high-earning jobs demand more effort. I have a PhD and it required a fair amount of work. My immediate family were all in unskilled, low-paying jobs which they found boring, and derived little satisfaction from. Who put more effort in? We both had to work, but I found it interesting and fulfilling, whereas they did not. For them, there was a far greater gap between what they were doing and what they wanted to be doing. I think it's obvious that their jobs required more effort in any morally relevant sense. The relationship between effort and pay seems fairly incidental, but a general trend is that the more you are paid, the more likely the job is to exercise and develop your faculties. In this respect, the trendline goes from harder to easier with pay.
- zozbot234 5y ago> ... My immediate family were all in unskilled, low-paying jobs which they found boring, and derived little satisfaction from. ... For that matter, I agree that many unskilled jobs are quite undervalued, and should be paid more. But the way to achieve that is surely not to dismiss the genuine, sometimes strenuous effort involved in developing valuable skills and talents as the mere outcome of unearned factors out of our control.
- Emma_Goldman 5y agoYour phrasing begs the question, for something to be discounted it has to exist. That's the debate, I and most contemporary philosophers to consider the subject think most of our talents are unearned. That might conflict with the psychological and ideological stories we tell to comfort ourselves and justify the domination of the poor, but I think it's very likely that the strong or weak version of the thesis is true. As I said in my original post, talents also only confer earning power relative to the particular configuration of supply and demand during our working life - over which, clearly, we have no control.