“Jobs, opportunities, and positions of authority should be distributed solely on the basis of merit.” Do you agree?
Welcome to Justice!
Justice is one of the most popular courses in Harvard's history, and has captivated more than 14,000 students.
Now it's your turn to hone your critical-thinking skills and explore the moral decisions we all face in our lives. Check out this short introduction video and begin your journey.
Play the Intro Video No thanks, let's proceed to the site.
Clearly in a Capitalist society, which postulates the ethos that hard work brings rewards, such a position would appear (on prima facie grounds) justified as merits supposedly reflect an individual's perennial persistence, dedication and hard work.
Nevertheless, I think one should consider that in the real world people start the competition that is life from different starting positions, with some people having a considerable advantage over others. For example, David Cameron has all the qualifications required to be Prime Minister of England but one is forgetting that he was private school educated at Eton and had thousands poured into his education to help him gain his 'merits'. Furthermore, it begs the question as to whether he would have been accepted into Oxford University had he been state school educated and not had
If you get a position of authority because you acted in a way that serves certain interests, is that a merit? In the eyes of the people deciding on whether you get this position or not, your behaviour could be seen as a merit (for the company, the party, the group) although your action was a very questionable thing. If a politician, for example, voted against tougher rules for the financial market, the banking lobby would see this act positively. And if that particular politician would get a position in the bank (or just a consultancy contract) as a result of his prior actions, then this is done on the base of merit - at least in the banker's view.
How about we briefly consider the office of President of the United States. The application process, or rather, the process of election, does not put every candidate on equal footing, as some candidates and nominees will have more resources to spend on their campaign, and as such, increase the awareness of their platform to the voters. Going beyond mere socio-economic differences, it is a fact that before Barack Obama became President only white males had held the office (mostly white protestants). There has never been a female president. There has never been a gay president (openly at least), or latino or Asian, even though these all are significant segments of the population. Could we then not apply the notion of both compensation, correction AND diversity to the office of President?
Well, should we apply a principle of affirmative action to the electoral college to 'correct' this unfair representation, and take into account such a thing as race or gender or sexual orientation, wouldn't that result in a scenario in which the vote of a person who is part of any given minority would count more than that of, say, a white heterosexual male? Would that be fair? Would that help heal racial divides etc., or widen them?
The thing to consider also, is the fact that while the minority students who are admitted to Harvard might help foster cultural diversity at this institution, the people who are rejected because of their race or ethnicity might well resent the person, or the ethnicity of the person, who 'took' their place. So while the academic community might enjoy more tolerance and diversity, the non-academic community might more easily be infested by racism, because there will be a sense of injustice and being discriminated against.
In that sense, I don't believe in the argument of affirmative action being a 'temporary' institution, because it merely perpetuates discrimination (albeit perhaps towards good ends), and helps promote the idea of race as a relevant factor to a person's worth. The absurdity of racism is exactly the idea that race has intrinsic value and should be respected as determinative influence on a person's ability or potential.
Elitism solely on the basis on merit seems somewhat shallow, and possibly dangerous.Should it not be virtue as well? You could argue that the able man has courage, temperence, diligence and other generally admired qualities, but unrestrained by morality this can only be harmful. I would expect it should be on the basis of merit, and virtue. (I believe Barbara Bell may have been getting at something like this, but I do not think I was competent enough to fully comprehend her meaning.) As for people starting at different positions with different advantages, I do not see a solution to that other then a total redesign of society along the lines of communism and possibly Platonism.
The problem with virtue, is that everyone has a different opinion which virtues are good and which are bad. For exemple, many believe faith to be a virtue, whereas for me, faith means accepting whatever without any proof whatsoever, and one of the greatest vices of mankind.
On the other hand, merit can always be agreed upon in its large definition of usefull skills for this or that position.
You are quite correct in this that virtue is a undefined thing. But merit is utterly useless without it. The most able man may be dishonest and injust. If he is given a position of respondiblity he is going to use this power for himself and harm society. Surely merit must be focused in the direction of the greater good? You may say how it will be hard to approximate in practice, but regardless this is the ideal and must be followed as far as it is able.
Futhermore what is your defination of useful? Do you just mean ability to make money?
Useful as in abilities one posseses that complement and improve the results of the job to be done, (for exemple a footballer: fast running and reflexes) this includes the ability to make money.
And with the exception of politics, virtue is of no consequence as long as the person is competent in his or her job.
Moreover, I think it has been shown enough through history, that what is percieved as virtue often is little more than personal preference or ignorance. When one starts selecting on virtue, what one is doing is selecting on the sense of virtue one happens to have, which might be mistaken. The importance of this, is that this can lead to decisions that are crimes, such as racism and antisemitism, while when one judges on merit alone, the problem is avoided.
In short: when one judges on merit alone, the one that gets the job might harm society, but the crime is his. When one takes virtue as a second criteria, not only is this person very far from assured to be just as selfish when tested, but also the crime ours. (as a society)
I am glad you are replying to me
I am afraid I still dont know what you mean by useful. Your example of the footballer, he is useful because the traits helps win games. That is what what he is trying to accomplish. However what is useful to society? We need to know what we are trying to accomplish as a society before we have a clue of what useful is. Try not to break it down to small examples but to give an overriding generalisation.
You second point you are still not arguing with the ideal. You say people may mistake what virtue is and judge on false virtue. I am not saying we should judge on what we think virtue is, but judge on what virtue actually is. The more we know about virtue, the more we can apply this in practice.
I am not quite sure why you think juding on merit alone would avoid the problems you mentioned, they could still be assigned this positions, solely on the basis of merit and possess the vices you named above. I also fail while it would be his crime in one instance and ours in another. If we are so silly to judge only on ability it is a failing as much as if we are judging on false virtue.
I was struck that no student gave what seemed to me the obvious answer to Michael Sandel's question regarding the philosophical difference between Harvard's definition of its mission in the 1930's, which excluded Jewish applicants, and its present mission, which favors inclusiveness. In the 1930's, Harvard was following an admissions policy that maintained the status quo. It was basically a policy of adapting to the business and professional environment rather than attempting to change that environment. Harvard's present admissions policy seems to be just the opposite;; to change the environment rather than to adapt to it. Philosophically, I guess this would represent a change from a more teleological, Aristotelian, point of view to a Kantian/Rawlsian one.
Maybe everyone was like me, and thought: "well they can't really say anything else if they want to win the trial, we all know it's just lawers talk so lets skip over it"
What do you say to someone who lies, who knows you know he's lying, but continues the lie because circomstances dont allow for him to be called a liar?
Jobs, opportunities, and positions of authority should be distributed solely on the basis of merit.” Do you agree?
Isn't this similar wording to one of those standardized multiple choice questions? Whenever they use words like "solely," "completely," "entirely," "absolutely," then the choice is almost always wrong?
What does merit mean? Isn't there a context needed for the definition?
I agree. I am clueless as to what merit is. Is it simply the ability to make money?
If merit means- efficiency, application of common sense and taking decision for the greater benefit of society, organisation and nation impartially then YES - job, opportunity and position of authority should only be given on the basis of merit.
Well said, Its just like for correcting a wrong effect we employ wrong means.
I don't know whether these wrong means will produce right effect or not but we must find a better way and we can find it.
Given present measures and practices followed to make the playfield more level, I think its more about making minority and other backward communities psychologically comfortable but in reality by making things easier for them we are making them weaker.
Imagine a situation where due to this discrimination the situation gets reversed or in other words we get some other different than earlier backward communities then again they will be provided same treatment resulting in another similar situation which continues for ever.
Or say in anticipation of that situation we give up policies( like affirmative action) just in time when all groups and communities are on same level field. Then what will happen - those who were in habit of getting things easily will suddenly find it tougher again.
Or if we say that by the time competitive level of these communities become comparative to others then we again are commiting a fallacy. By that time other communities will have become more hard working and efficient
Your essay takes an interesting cynical approach after this.
It is true that what is useful to society is a nonsensical question. It is akin to what is the meaning of life. A very hard thing perceive yet the harsh reality of the situation is that we must have some grasp of it before we know what useful in acheiving that meaning.
The ideal society and ideal person are two sides of the same coin. If you have one you have the other and if you answer one you answer the other. Indeed Plato did not create the ideal society to create an Ideal society but to see what the ideal person was. They are very similar things so I cannot treat them so different as you do.
think there is a confusion of what I mean by virtue. Virtue encomprasses merit. The Virtuous person is always able but the able person is not always Virtuous. Think about it, if someone is truly virtuous they will work hard to achieve good results and thus become able. So I will redifine my thinking a little and say that it should be judged soley on the basis on virtue.
I did see the Irony in that statement but could not have expressed it any other way. You are saying what if they don't judge on virtue but something else. I admit it could be probablmatic in practice, however that is another matter. They are not following the ideal I am stating. So in essence you are saying 'what if they don't follow your ideal.' Saying 'your ideal is wrong because people won't follow it.' Is even more silly then my orginal statement.
Your last point, the first thing that leaps to mind is once again, how is that useful to society? Also an olympic runner is hardly a position of respondiblity. Also with my new definition of virtue the best runners may very well be virtuous.
Ah but the décalage between theorie and practice is one of the main issues here. I've been saying that something might sound right in theorie, but the test of its correctness lies in its application in reality. And in this case, I'm saying that allowing the judgement on Virtue put forth by "society" won't fail to degenerate into racism and discrimination as grave as your imagination could possibly take you.
And no, thats not the essence of what I'm saying, and I think I made that clear enough.
Lastly, I mentioned that the judgement on virtue "ban", if you will, has one exception: politicians. (I'm guessing thats what you meant with position of responsibility?) This simply because the contrary would be undemocratic, though I do consider it to be the lesser of two evils.
If a ideal is right then it must by appoximated in practice. It is our duty to do that. And the way we apply the ideal has many varations, however the ideal stays the same. Saying we should change the ideal so it is easier to put into practice doesn't make sense to me. If an ideal is truly right then there are no substitutes for it.
You say it could be difficult to approximate it, that is our failing not the ideals. Saying that the its 'correctness' lies on its application to in reality puzzles me. It seem that this would imply that its correctless lies on its usefulness. But we are clueless as to what is useful to society.
Yes I've always more or less never had much respect for Plato. He might have been a genius considering there was so little known about human nature and the world at the time, so his lacking is understandable, but as a modern philosopher, most of his arguments dont survive inspection.
The idea of the "ideal person", is an immoral one to me. A defendable position from Plato's time, when everything not greec was inferior, barbarian and slave material. It is of course still applicable on an individual level, but only as private practice, for in the public sphere such ideas can only result in crazy situations and conflict and more importantly unjust discrimination. Exemples are ideas such as: "what an ideal man is" that is used to justify denying homosexual couples from raising children, or "what an ideal woman is" that is used to justify denying women as much as equal rights.
Well I more or less already said what I think about virtue and its place and nature. However I do have some remarks again ^^
First, the virtuous is not always able, handicapped people can be virtuous. You say if someone is truly virtuous they will work hard, yet I do not consider hard work a virtue per se. I see how you would see it as a virtue, but this is an example of a case where I dont agree on what you would define as virtuous, and hence an illustration of the problem I've been trying to stress the importance of.
Hahahaha that does make me laugh. I would say that most modern arguements don't survive his inspection. Ideas are timeless. Justice was the same thing in greece as it is now. Such a contrast of opinion. I trust you've actually read him though?
I am glad you admitted the ideal person was still applicable on an individual level. That saves alot of time. In terms of the ideal society it must be fun living with the idea that it should not be realised. Why do we not just all throw up our hands and say we should never try to improve society because it might not work. Forget any improvement as it is likely to be unjust. If people try to do it stupidly then it probably will have bad results. but thats up to the people doing it, not the ideal itself.
In essence we can't realise the ideal society now because people are not virtuous enough to run it.
I should have clarfied what I meant by able. I would argue that the virtuous physically handicapped person is mentally able. If he's mentally handicapped then I cannot see how he could be virtuous, but feel free to enlighten me.
The thing is that alot of his ideas, have as basis either assumptions on the devine or of nature, the former is irrational and the latter pure ignorance, of what he just couldnt know at the time.
Furthermore, I think I made it clear already, but let me try again.^^
The ideal person applied on an individual level is what? Its the personal persuit to be the best you can be. The moment this search goes beyond a private search, it can quickly degenerate into crime. The very Idea of an "ideal" anything is an immoral and dangerous one. It forces a dual world view, a black and white society that will quickly pass judgement beyond its mandate, as in not hesitating to violate the inherent rights of others who are percieved as evil…but I covered that already.
We do not seem to be getting anywhere. However there is one last thing I would like to clarify.
You say positions of authority should be based on merit alone. But you make an execption to politics. Why? You seem to contradict yourself somewhat. You say if people try to judge on virtue, they will judge on false virtue. Okay. So then why make an exception to Politics, surely if anything Politics would be one thing you would not have false virtue enter into. As Perhaps it will lead to Racism or whatever.
Indeed it could, and is that not one of the elements of objection against democracy that even Plato evokes?
I make the exception of politicians, because the sense of virtue is one of the abilities that determine the job of engaging in politics.
Yes and that is why virtue encompasses ability. Virtue is just a specific form of usefulness. It is being useful to society.
No, virtue is very cleary not of the domain of usefulness, ability or merit. The latter three can all be observed objectively, virtue cannot. If tried, this results in a communist regime, who's evils I do not have to enumerate.
But I see we're really in a loop now…as you seem to have aligned yourself with the communist ideas through utilitaristic argumentation, including the definition of virtue.
Give me one example of the virtuous person not being useful to society. Just one. Keep in mind that if someone is a 'hermit', but still 'virtuous.' They are still being useful to society as they are part of society. You said before that virtue is intent and effort towards the good. It can not be just intent as you must have some sort of ability before any sort of morality and justice can be realised. You say effort as well. But tell me if one truly makes an effort would they not have to develop there ability before this morality was realized at all.
Also please tell me what is wrong with Communism as an ideal. What is inherently 'evil' about it.
What is freedom then? What is human rights?
Sorry I can see you defined them in the other topic
(Stumbled onto this and compelled to give "average person's" perspective, i.e. not law student or anything close to it.) First-Who determines the qualifications for merit? Professional hierarchy associated with merit would most certainly be as subjective as determining what is fine art or junk. One could easily argue both sides.
If merit criteria is defined as experience within an industry or profession and rate of success, then the short answer is yes. Some associate hard work with merit, where I say working hard never guarantees success. Social and financial status aside, an individual's accomplishments may be achieved more easily over other colleagues; therefore, merit could equate to efficiency and trump the harder working individual.
A very provactive question, the answer to which depends on the meaning of merit.What may be considered merit to one may not to another.Certainly meritorious actions that promote the common good would classify as merit ., and so awarding a job or jobs to individuals who further the common good is an appropriate and ethical practice.