Hmmm, kiiiiiinda. But if we declare equivalences without providing any justification, there's little substance: We should look (up|down) to people wh

Hmmm, kiiiiiinda. But if we declare equivalences without providing any justification, there's little substance: We should look (up|down) to people who (do|don't) have X. It's meaningless. In order to make this seem meaningful, you could dictate some premises, for example: We should look up to people who have inherited wealth. We should look down upon people who don't have high IQ. What issue does this illuminate? By declaring unearned wealth and unearned IQ (or unearned musical talent) to be comparable, what can we learn? Are they, in fact, comparable in any meaningful way? It seems an odd approach. The initial premises seem to illuminate the person who selects them, rather than illuminating any societal issue. What can we learn from your selection, other than that you seem to feel an affinity towards those with inherited wealth? There is of course one apparent distinction between inherited wealth and inherited ability, be it musical or sporting or intelligence or what have you. Wealth tends to be accrued, while talent can only be recognised when it is shared.