While inequality, unfairness and poor "performance" of many people does have roots in public policy choices (particularly encouragement of extreme capitalism, or sometimes the opposite in collectivism) ultimately the only place we can start addressing all this is with out own attitudes and behavior choices, and values.
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Philosophy 101, revisited: Is pure meritocracy ethical at all?
Here are some thoughts I’m trying to put into
logical sequence.
I don’t get the “joy” out of “helping others” for
its own sake that others would like to see me experience. I can’t stand being
recruited to other peoples’ causes unless I have already made a chice to have a
direct stake in them. If anyone can be a
victim then no one is. There are so many
pleading for dire needs, that no one need seems more urgent than another.
I agree my attitude is a bit Calvinistic, but that
seems to come from logic, not faith.
We say we are different from most other animals
because we want to regard every human life as intrinsically sacred. But to carry out that belief, we need
rules. True, in a democracy people make
the rules, indirectly. But someone needs
the power to enforce the rules.
Therefore there is a risk of corruption. So we say that the law should do as little as
possible, be hands off. That is
essentially the basis of libertarianism.
Inevitably, in any system, some people do better (or
at least “look better”) than others. A
Calvinist says that’s because some people are intrinsically better than others,
as a simple mathematical postulate – any finite or countable set with a measure
or metric can be well-ordered. What we
don’t like to admit is that fortune and luck (sometimes turning on small incidents) play a much bigger part in how
people turn out than we (libertarians) want to admit. And we don't like to see that some of us who are better off depended on the unseen sacrifices of others, sometimes under coercion, and possibly inviting huge payback. The pure libertarian position would let the
weaker ones die off, which creates a cultural, although not legal, impulse and
obligation from others to step up, even when it costs something. Such a capacity is supposed to comport with the permanent complementarity of traditional marriage. The alternative could be an accidental
redirection toward fascism. Religious
systems try to get around this paradox by just claiming some rules of human
behavior (especially with regards to sexuality and family) are simply
scriptural edicts, determined to please a higher power, a God or Allah.
Logic alone
could make pure individual meritocracy seem moral, but that would seem to
contradict a dedication to the value of human life. Anyone could suddenly be in need, and need to accept attention from others that could have previously been unwanted/
While inequality, unfairness and poor "performance" of many people does have roots in public policy choices (particularly encouragement of extreme capitalism, or sometimes the opposite in collectivism) ultimately the only place we can start addressing all this is with out own attitudes and behavior choices, and values.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment