3 ms·

There are many strange and not necessarily good assumptions in this post. 1) How is it "merit" is strictly about genetic variation, rather than a combination o

There are many strange and not necessarily good assumptions in this post. 1) How is it "merit" is strictly about genetic variation, rather than a combination of said genetic ability and a record of the use of it (achievement). 2) How is it that equality is strictly about starting position, rather than starting position resource allocation protection? One can have a meritocracy in which resource allocation is not about more-to better. It can in fact be about responsibility and accountability being greater. Not saying I agree with this, it is just a hole in the argument. 3) Resource distribution need not be 0-sum. There can in fact be more than 2 categories of "mine" and "not mine". There can be categories such as "available to everyone", "available to no one", and variations on "available to some". [1] 4) deserves is always and strictly a moral argument. There is no justification of deserves that doesn't at some point refer directly to axioms (morals). Therefore we again get to assumptions that need be discussed. [1] Here in lies all the interesting stuff. Interplay between "some people get access" and "mine" categories of resources are where all discussions like this are really happening. How you define "some people get access" really can change the end result of "mine" for various actors. Similarly, "everyone gets access", in reality, is very tricky. For instance you could claim, and be mostly right, that everyone gets access to computers (via public libraries etc). Yet, not everyone gets access to training in effective computer use - that is reserved for "some people get access", where the rules are 'has enough money for proper training' (aka defining access rules on how much is already in your "mine" resoures). It is a complicated interplay.

larsonf 14y ago
Whoops, let me unpack. 1) That 'merit' is based on genetic variation was purely for the sake of illustration. Of course this is not the case in reality. Yet to boil down the problem to where we artificially limit the factors can help expose the real issue. In Equalistan, the fictitious illustration, everyone showed up at 25 with no history or connections. They immediately took a test. The genetic variation is just to show that random mutations can produce very varied outcomes. In the real world, the situation is inconceivable worse. You have genetic ability, mentorship, poetical power, network connections, wealth, random physical events, etc, that all affect outcomes. 2) Although, again, the example given was purely artificial, it is not so clear that personal 'accountability' or 'responsibility' is something that someone can help. A person with a super-charged frontal cortex will be very 'accountable' or 'responsible' with their abilities. The knock-on effects of stewardship of traits are very much the cause of other traits, whether inherited genetically or contextually (via parents or social structures). But I might be missing what you're saying here. 3) Resource distribution, you're right, is not zero-sum. In fact, on an absolute basis, there is no reason why anyone should ever write an article about injustice of outcomes given that overall standards of living are unbelievable high for people at large, and relative to past ages, although still very far form optimal. But this isn't the point of the article. Relative distribution of resources is the issue. But here 'resources' isn't necessarily physical things, it's anything limited. Power is zero sum, no matter what, and is still a resource to be distributed. 4) Yes, 'deserves' is fully-loaded, and that was the point of mentioning it. We somehow, for some bizarre reason feel that some people 'deserve' things and others do not and we should try to make sure people only have what they 'deserve'. But, you're right, this is nuts, at what point could we possible say that someone can really claim they did something independent of chance to have some moral justification to some resource, power or otherwise? Never. If you are hardworking--how can you separate that from genes plus context. If you are smart, how are you anything other than your inborn ability plus instruction. So I'm not saying some people don't deserve stuff, I'm saying this whole notion of deserving anything is ridiculous. Justification of outcomes as anything other than randomness is just what elitism is.

larsonf 14y ago

Whoops, let me unpack. 1) That 'merit' is based on genetic variation was purely for the sake of illustration. Of course this is not the case in reality. Yet to boil down the problem to where we artificially limit the factors can help expose the real issue. In Equalistan, the fictitious illustration, everyone showed up at 25 with no history or connections. They immediately took a test. The genetic variation is just to show that random mutations can produce very varied outcomes. In the real world, the situation is inconceivable worse. You have genetic ability, mentorship, poetical power, network connections, wealth, random physical events, etc, that all affect outcomes. 2) Although, again, the example given was purely artificial, it is not so clear that personal 'accountability' or 'responsibility' is something that someone can help. A person with a super-charged frontal cortex will be very 'accountable' or 'responsible' with their abilities. The knock-on effects of stewardship of traits are very much the cause of other traits, whether inherited genetically or contextually (via parents or social structures). But I might be missing what you're saying here. 3) Resource distribution, you're right, is not zero-sum. In fact, on an absolute basis, there is no reason why anyone should ever write an article about injustice of outcomes given that overall standards of living are unbelievable high for people at large, and relative to past ages, although still very far form optimal. But this isn't the point of the article. Relative distribution of resources is the issue. But here 'resources' isn't necessarily physical things, it's anything limited. Power is zero sum, no matter what, and is still a resource to be distributed. 4) Yes, 'deserves' is fully-loaded, and that was the point of mentioning it. We somehow, for some bizarre reason feel that some people 'deserve' things and others do not and we should try to make sure people only have what they 'deserve'. But, you're right, this is nuts, at what point could we possible say that someone can really claim they did something independent of chance to have some moral justification to some resource, power or otherwise? Never. If you are hardworking--how can you separate that from genes plus context. If you are smart, how are you anything other than your inborn ability plus instruction. So I'm not saying some people don't deserve stuff, I'm saying this whole notion of deserving anything is ridiculous. Justification of outcomes as anything other than randomness is just what elitism is.