The Tyranny of Merit | Do We Deserve What We Get? Michael Sandel & Cosmic Skeptic
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: cosmicskeptic.teemill.com/
-------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------
Michael J. Sandel is an American political philosopher, and Professor of Government Theory at Harvard University Law School. His public lectures have been viewed by tens of millions of people around the world, including in China, where Sandel was named the "most influential foreign figure of the year".
Dr. Sandel talks to Alex about his new book, The Tyranny of Merit, discussing not just whether meritocracy is achievable in practice, but also whether it is even something we should aim for at all, highlighting the wealth of potential damage that meritocracy can affect on a society which embraces it.
-------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------
Buy or preorder 'The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?': us.macmillan.com/books/978037...
UK book: www.penguin.co.uk/books/31311...
Michael Sandel's 'Justice' lectures, freely available on KZhead: • Justice with Michael S...
Dr. Sandel's previous book, 'Justice: What's The Right Thing to Do?': amzn.to/2FaO2Ss
---------------------SPECIAL THANKS-----------------------
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
Faraz Harsini
James O'Neill
John Early
Austin Chiappetta
Sveline
Teymour Beydoun
Isaac Medina
Adam Gray
Nolan Kent
----------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Cosmic Skeptic Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
---------------------------CONTACT------------------------------
Business email: cosmicskeptic@gmail.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like how seriously Prof Sandel takes Alex. Despite being so much older and experienced he doesn't look down on him, calls him by name often, is interested in his perspective, and just shows genuine respect. What a cultivated character.
Yep, I respect him for that in spite of my disagreement with him.
@@pneumonoultramicroscopicsi4065 Whats your disagreement?
Tru tru
@@vals4207 He seems like a lovely bloke
Great guy, indeed
Pretty surprising coming from Tywin Lannister.
I knew he reminded me on someone thanks for putting the face together 😂
the tywinny of merit :3
He isn’t Tywin Lannister
@@kaizen1132 Yes, he is
I didn't realize that 😂
Ah man, I read for the third time Sandel's Justice: What's the Right Thing to do? a few weeks ago (superb book), and so I'll be pre-ordering The Tyranny of Merit after writing this comment. Sandel's writing style is extremely accessible. Grand job Alex! What an awesome person to have on your podcast. EDIT: As much as I enjoy listening to Sandel, I wish he'd give his voice the merit of a good microphone :P
I read the book because you recommended it. I overall enjoyed it but after the halfway point i found it to get a bit repetitive and too hypothetical for my taste.
I noticed his entire lecture series "whats the right thing to do" is available here on KZhead .. he starts off with the famous 'trolly dilemma' .. was this moral scenario his idea does anyone know?
The big pitfall with your conversation is you incorrectly distinguish talent from effort. In fact, the ability to put in effort is itself a talent. Some people are just lazy.
@Ian Corral Are you even worth responding to?
@Ian Corral Some people are naturally more hard-working than others. I am a procrastinator, for example. Is the ability to work hard without procrastinating not also a talent?
In high school, I began taking ethics and philosophy at my local college. I had specifically requested to take these classes for duel enrollment. My professor gave me Sandel’s book “Justice” as a graduation gift and told me that he truly believed in my future. Best teacher I’ve ever had.
One of the things I love about this channel, is that Alex questions even the things he agrees to, in order to find flaws and answers by examining points of view. We, as a society, have a lot to learn from people like him.
He lives up to "Skeptic" very well
i mean its society that refuses allot lol
Why is effort more meritorious than talent? How much effort you're willing to put in and how willing you are to get out of your confort zone is just as deterministic as being talented or not.
I suppose Sandel believes in free will. And even if he doesn't, for any practical ethical discussion you have to postulate free will otherwise in the real world your model becomes useless. (I haven't finish the video yet)
I haven't finished the video yet either but if you're asking the question then I'm guessing this point doesn't get addressed. Obviously I can't speak for Sandel, but it seems to me that talent and effort are different in nature. Talent is a mere property of the individual, with no particular connection to any reward system. Effort, on the other hand, is a measure of the level of personal sacrifice that an individual goes through in order to obtain something of greater subjective value. It's _predicated_ upon a cost/benefit dynamic and has a concrete (and generally negative) experience attached to it. You could certainly argue that it still doesn't make it meritorious _per se,_ but it's probably the closest thing there is to a concept that otherwise simply does not exist in Alex's worldview. Edit - Okay so it turns out Alex is the one assigning merit to effort while Sandel seems to be conflating merit with worth, which he derives from achievement. I think my point still stands as to the relation between effort and merit, but it's really enriching to see this aspect of the question being discussed.
There's no such thing as "talent" it's just hard work and perseverance, mostly driven by interest or passion. Most people don't have that interest due to being forced into (often needless) jobs just to survive.
Because working hard to become skilled is difficult and displays character traits that are admirable. Talent is a result of luck in the DNA lottery, not virtue.
Determination is it’s own type of talent
Alex, love the content. I listen avidly to the meta considerations you bring to these conversations. One bit of feedback for conversations like this with people that don't know your want to diving into metaethics: when people say something, and you tease apart necessary baser principles based on what they said, then you pose them back, I'm not sure your conversation partner always knows that you are posing a question based not on your own opinion. In this conversation it seemed at times that the Professor assumed that the things you said were your opinions, rather than precepts that natural followed from what he had just told you. Again, loved the conversation. Thanks for having them.
Watched Dr. Michael Sandel's Justice series a few months ago. It was too good and gave me a new perspective about a lot of things. Thanks a lot.🙌
I felt like Sandel was trying to link every argument with his book, in order to defend his premises, while Alex was trying to take it further and talk about the implications in justice, punishment, socaul praise, etc. Although this discussion worked for me to undestand Sandel's core points, I would have liked for him to have taken up the challenge of this thought experiment with Alex. Alex said that he agreed that we should question what we value and how we incentive, but he was trying to work out the meta-ethics that come from all of this, especially with the assertion that free will doesn't exist and that talent and the environment and genetics that shape your behavior is a matter of luck.
Sandel seems to think it's not fair that some have more merit than others ... he's talking more about how HE THINKS society should be ... rather than how it actually is ... and seemed to avoid any discussion that under cut his argument
Just discovered this channel and subscribed. Interesting content, rational analysis 👍 The world needs more sceptics!
Great discussion; when I look at my profession, architecture, I realized that result trumped effort with all clients - those that are creative and quick... win. Thanks to you both.
Is it just me or did it move from "the tyranny of merit" to merit is ok provided it is within what I consider moral?
Yes! He seems unwilling to accept the logical consequences of his ideas and its infuriating!
@@JuliaC-sp5qk Hi Im wondering what you mean by the consequences of his ideas. What did you have in mind?
I saw the same thing, it seems to be sneaking in an unidentified moral absolute.
Scrolling to find this comment. I totally agree.
@@xsuploader his views on punishment in particular. He seems willing to justify punishment for people who are psychologically predisposed to harming others, but that is based on luck just as much as the other stuff he's talking about.
I feel like he dodged that question about the unredeemable "criminal". In his framework, I'd be more inclined to say I'm not convinced there is a such thing as an unredeemable person, or if it turns out there is such a person, it doesn't mean they "deserve" anything, good or bad. On a moral level, imprisonment might be a necessary evil used 1) to attempt to rehabilitate that person, or if that truly doesn't work, 2) to keep them from causing suffering to others. In the latter case, the moral framework is distanced from "merit" or "deserving", and I would be inclined to say the person doesn't necessarily have to suffer for it. With less people in prison, more time could be spent keeping the person healthy and generally fulfilled to some kind of basic standard that, at the time, we would provide for others. If we leave room for punishment, it'll be as a deterrent, not an application of "justice" based on merit. And that's assuming deterrents work in this case. Granted, we're talking about a society that doesn't currently exist and that we have no evidence of existing in the past. Something tells me that both his entire framework and my response here would be subject to change as we advance science and learn more about the human condition, and nothing we come up with could solve every issue. I just believe it is imperative that we do something, and that something should be based on the best data available, even if the data isn't fullproof.
Right on!
there is such a thing as a unredeemable criminal
@@rbxgamesstore230 - Maybe there is, but I fail to recognize the framework upon which I might recognize such a person.
@Juno0016: ... I had similar thoughts, but I prefer your phrasing. MfG, Egooist
I murder someone. You "reform me" and release me. I murder another. You "reform me" and release me again. I murder another. How many do I get to murder before you admit failure?
I tried to have a conversation like this with a family member, they are right wing religious and I am left wing atheist, and when I brought up the luck aspect of our lives, where we lived and grew up, the low crime rate, etc., they said that we were just very blessed (ya' know by like god). So it seems that even if the subject of getting lucky in life comes up there are backup plans that say even if you didn't earn it in your lifetime you are still somehow transcendentally worth it.
But still god chose you was also out of your control so that just makes you lucky that god chose you to be lucky. You did not chose your soul (according to most religious). So you where still lucky that god made you someone that he wanted to bless.
@@wowjack8944 Yes, but surely if god chose you to suffer then you must be deserving of it?
But what did I do to make God choose me, for either good luck or bad luck? Can I do it again, intentionally this time? You're talking in circles.
@@andywilson5677 No, because he made you the way you are. How can i be deserving of something for the thing i did not do?
@@kylehenderson9489 You are adressing andy right?
This is so awesome, can't believe you were able to talk to Michael Sandel! Excited to watch this :D
Hey Alex, good to see you uploading again.
At the end of the day, when you want to book a flight, you wish the pilot is the "best" possible pilot you could get, no matter if the pilot achieved the cockpit because of their genetic talents, hardwork, or the platform their environment provided to them to flourish. That's the meaning of "merit". "Moral" and "Justice" don't have any say or even meaning in this case. The same for the heart surgeon etc. ...
yep ... I think Sandel let his ideology affect his ideas on this one
if developed farther, it goes to 'money doesn't smell'!
I think Sandel believes that the consequences of being among ‘the best’ in any given respect are corrosive as we tend to confer a higher moral status on another person based on what he believes to be an arbitrary basis (maybe due to his belief that people view think money=worth as a person). I’m sure he isn’t against people being better than others at certain things since that is simply a fact of life. We aren’t and can never truly be self-sufficient as long as we’re human; people will always be better and worse than us at things and that’s ok. I think the ideal goal of Sandel in his writings is to have a society in where people are able to maintain their social and self esteem whilst understanding the fact that they might not ever be the best at something. Whether that’s better than the current system we have is another question but that’s how I interpret him.
I can’t say I agree with him when it comes to policy of his views since it’s more the consequences of a disparity in pay that cause the problems to sandel than the disparity in pay itself. If he’s after improved fundamental rights for people then his argument is much better suited for that imo
Having a particular skill set confers advantages in performing a task. The problem arises when the possession of some arbitrary credential becomes the sole criterion for assessing the social value of an individual. Is the skilled pilot a "more important" member of society than the skilled carpenter, or the relatively unskilled cleaner? Certainly the pilot is important to the people sitting in the plane, but outside that plane how do we assess their relative importance to the society as a whole and how do we determine their value as a person within a society of people? Should their expressed views about how society should be organised have more weight than some other person who may possess some other type of credential, or the person who has no credential, but acts in ways that help others? Should they be specially protected by the society, while those who for whatever reason have no special skill be allowed to fend for themselves?
"Man values his gifts precisely in the degree that they are appreciated by others" A quote for which I have no affirmation.
Do you mean you have no attribution for the quote? Meaning you don't know who to attribute it to? No affirmation would be no evidence that it is true, in which case what value is it?
@@DanceSeek Right, I meant attribution - any idea along the line.
I tried, I couldn't find a reliable source for the quote.
I said it. Prove me wrong.
@@silasbishop3055 Why try, there's nothing wrong to prove, just didn't know where it came from.
Alex, you did a superb job exploring the subtle complexity of this topic. This was a first-rate discussion largely due to your intellectual maturity. Your thoughtfulness always impresses me.
Yay! I just loaded up. I'm looking forward to a great production. Thanks again!
Great guest Alex. I heard Michael Sandel on Start the Week on R4 and was yelling my agreement at the radio. Ever since I woke up to determinism and a more expansive view of justice, I have found this position extremely compelling.
There's a logical contradiction in your comment. See if you can detect it...
he stares right into my soul
Lmfao. He looks like Brent Spiner(Data).
This was a great conversation, I was not familiar with Sandel. Will be looking to pick up one of his books. Thanks Alex.
Such an interesting discussion! Thanks for this, both of you gents. 🤝
38:00 - Discussing the value of effort and talent I just want to say something rather odd: - What if "being a hard worker" is actually a talent? - Less rewards doesn't mean no reward - Reward is not the purpose of work, instead, it is the consequence of working. - - - For example: A programmer doesn't develop a software to make money, but to solve a specific problem. However, by doing so, he is rewarded for his contribution. Therefore, the focus shouldn't be on reward, but on the action itself. The question about who should we appreciate more is actually difficult because of our limitation to appreciate someone's effort infinitely. Having said that, the one who is less rewarded should not think he is less than who he is, instead, he should perhaps humbly understand that the reward he receives does not reflect the action he took because our limitation as a human.
41:00 We have a predisposition to applaud overcoming struggle: we love the underdog. There has never been a decent drama written without struggle, no war hero who never puts in any effort and still manages to kill all the "bad guys," etc. We, for whatever set of reasons, admire people who look adversity in the face and push through it to victory. There's a strength of character and heroism found there.
Kevin Reagan yes🙂
There seems to be a strange obsession with the rags to riches story (such as The Pursuit of Happyness) in the USA which Europeans generally aren't as fond of
@@warbler1984 What are They fond of? Riches to rags? They, they...
@@ludwigbeethoven3119 Laughs in Greece.
Fantastic conversation. I've got some thinking to do.🙂
Thank you, this was rather illuminating and I think your questions and inputs really helped put into relief some key questions on the book and on what the excellent Michael Sandel is really thinking. I wish it had gone on for a little longer.
I completely disagree that people who are "evil by nature" deserve PUNISHMENT, but why do we need a system of retributive justice? A penal system doesn't have to be retributive, it can serve rehabilitative or even incapacitative functions. If someone just doesn't understand that murder has no place in our modern society, we don't need to "punish" them per se, we just need to get them away from other people because they're a threat to all of us. There's no need to use moral words like "good" or "desert," we can just say that way of life is incompatible with other people's lives and therefore must be separate.
putting an evil person behind bars or away from other people is a form of punishment as it is most likely against his will. There's no need to come up with a nicer way to name that act.
I think it is perfectly appropriate to say someone deserves to be punished for doing something wrong. And I think so because we collectively choose how to respond to an immoral action. To say they are worthy of blame is simply a reflection of our attitudes towards their complicitness in the action that we morally rebuke. It's an expression of our values and the fact that they've been violated, and it's appropriate.
Oh wow what an honour to have Sandel as your guest on podcast and i will definitely read this book. Thank you so much for brain snack content as always Alex!
The puppy-mouse Alex is merely seeking attention as usual because he likes to plug his religious views because that is what attention seeking puppy- mice do.
Sort of an awkward abrupt ending but a very interesting conversation. Well done. Thanks.
MICHAEL SANDEL'S POINTS BROUGHT UP ARE SO NECESSARY .
Hearing the talk it brings to mind all the problems with the concept of Karma. If you're sick, happy, etc you must of done something to deserve it etc
Karma is nonsense, good people suffer all the time, cheaters always get ahead in life :)
ScottM1973 yes
Yeah. It leads to a lack of empathy for the unfortunate. Also the caste system is justified with the help of the concept of Karma. It is a dangerous concept. Why are the lower castes inferior and must be discriminated against? Cuz they sinned in their previous lives and hence they deserved to born as a lower caste.
You have done a great job challenging his view, a great podcast!
I didn't really see much challenge at all. I'm only halfway in though.
Alex, I found this video because I recognized Professor Sandel and wanted to hear his take on this subject. You Sir, gained my respect with your line of questioning. You found the fault in the philosophy and brought it to the forefront of the conversation by asking about the "unlucky" who don't deserve to be punished for their actions in the same way the "lucky" supposedly don't deserve to benefit from their actions. Great interview!
Keep up the good work Alex, I wanna live to see you reaching 600k subscribers 💯
I remember an incident when I was a young boy in daycare: the daycare workers were frustrated with me, because I would sit in corners to think where I was hard to find (they would get quite nervous looking for me, even though I tended to be in the same one or two places. They argued that they shouldn't have to exert energy to watch me. They had designed the rooms at this daycare to be very open from wherever you were). We arranged that they would take an old rocking chair out of storage and set it at the far end of the room where I could be alone, and they could always see me. This didn't take away from anyone's ability to enjoy their time at daycare, except for one child. He couldn't stand that I had a different (special) chair. This was no practical concern for him. He hardly sat in chairs, except with everyone else. Having a rocking chair would have gotten in the way of a good time for him, but he couldn't enjoy himself unless he had the impression that no one had something he didn't. One day, coming in from school, I found this kid sitting in the rocking chair, so I walked up and tipped him out of the chair and sat down in it. The kid tried, but he couldn't get me out of the chair. I was wise to my own tricks. In the end, he whined to the daycare workers until they took away the rocking chair, and I had to sit on the floor. The point of this story is to highlight one of the darker parts of human nature. That little boy never said that he couldn't stand anyone to have what he didn't have, out loud (he was very artless in concealing it, as any little boy might be expected to be). Instead, he appealed to the "unfairness" of me having something that he had previously felt no desire for. He was envious. His appeal to fairness was hollow, and that's important here, because I hear a similar tone in the arguments that Michael Sandel brings forth. He was willing to become a professor, and he can live on his salary, but he contests the righteousness of a sports star or a movie star making more money than he does. I think he simply resents that some people can command a higher salary and more honors than he can. No matter what "hand" you are dealt in life, you can live a good one with virtue. You can be satisfied just to live in peace, with the bare necessities. In any situation where environmental factors prevent you from a basic, healthy quality of life, we can take measures to alleviate that problem. Finally, I object to people being given the power to decide what is worthy of merit (financial success and public acclaim). Let the market decide.
Very good story, I especially like that you were kids. It highlights that it is a very immature way of thinking. At first I thought that he was stupid and "evil", but immature is a much better way of descibing it. Not sure that a 67 year old man would prefer that over evil.
@@dtkedtyjrtyj All I know of the guy is what I see. I noticed envy, and I felt it needed to be called out. The Professor talks a high-minded game, but I think he just can't stand to see others getting attention in a game he can't win. If someone thinks I'm wrong, I'm ready to be proven wrong. just sayin'
Sandel owes you a beer because this interview convinced me to buy the book. Well done Alex.
Thank you for this awesome interview. I do think, tyranny of merit and the amount of effort and/or brilliance are two different and separate discussions.
Fantastic guest and conversation
Man this is such an interesting discussion! Thanks so much to the both of you!!
One of the arguments that you often hear to support the idea of a meritocracy is that we should have "equal opportunity not equal outcome". As someone who, like Alex, doesn't believe in free will it always struck me as a bizarre thing to say. Imagine a physicist who positions two rocks at the top of a hill and pushes them both down. If one gets to the bottom of the hill, while the other gets suck half way, the physicist wouldn't say that they had "equal opportunity to get to the bottom". If you repeated the experiment again with the exact same conditions and forces acting on the rocks then the outcome would be the same. The only way to truly have equal opportunity is to have identical starting conditions. In the human case that would mean identical genes and an identical environment. Of course if all conditions are identical then the outcome would also be. The idea of equal opportunity doesn't make any sense. It's suggesting that some things are unfair, like for instance not having access to a good school, but other things that equally the person had no control over are fair and it is morally okay for people to suffer because of them. It seems to me that they are just drawing an arbitrary line between what is considered "equal opportunity" and what isn't and then claiming that any fate that bestows a person beyond that is deserved.
Andy Wilson good point
You're forgetting that the notion of "equality of opportunity" is a term used in the context of groups of people. You're correct that this concept is dangerous when comparing between individuals, since, at this scale, there is a lot of variation in traits that are important to us. However, the same cannot be said for groups of people, as there are negligible average difference across groups of people for most traits relevant to value creation in an economy.
@@JoelChristophel Even in the case of groups this argument is still drawing an arbitrary distinction between some causes that lead to success/failure and not others. If we imagine a world where this hypothetical "equal opportunity" between groups of people was realized there would still be lucky/unlucky people within those groups. But this argument seems to suggest that there are certain forms of luck that it is morally permissible to reward/punish people for and other forms which it is not.
Yeah, I've definitely conceded that individuals can be (un)lucky, but I see the equal opportunity vs outcome debate largely existing within the context of groups. Within this debate, the relevant inequity is the result of a company or societal failing with respect to a group of people. Surely we can make progress on that issue, all while recognizing that creating equal opportunity between groups isn't the end game with respect to individuals. As an individual, even if I can unfairly be made unlucky by a trait like intelligence, I still benefit if I cannot be made further unlucky by my skin color or gender.
It absolutely does make sense. In a society with limited resources, it would be very inefficient and regressive to attempt to equalize outcomes.
Professor Sandel helped me to fall in love with ethics and my own capacity to affect the world around me. He is a beautiful human.
Fantastic insights. Many people assume that an unbridled meritocracy would be completely fair, but that's far from the truth. So glad to hear this issue being discussed.
If you stopped admitting students to colleges on merit, what would you replace that admission criteria with ? Endless assessment of social and economic background of EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE with respect to the effort put in and knowledge possessed ?
It’s about what qualifies as merit.
Nope. Colleges admit students based on the way they want their campus to appear. So, if they want it to appear racially diverse, they will allot a certain percentage of acceptances to specific races, and use that as a primary filtering criteria, etc.
@@Iamwrongbut Partly true. And yet, isn't that exactly what you would get when you discard meritocracy ? Quotas based on social backgrounds ? But even these quotas aren't diverse enough, because no two black students have had the same struggles and advantages.
Shantanu Tomar I don’t think his point is to discard all views of merit, but to discard the current view of “merit” in our society. It seems to me that his point is that our society should align the moral and market rewards with what benefits the common good most. Thus, teachers and health workers should be more respected and paid better than casino owners that routinely destroy people’s lives (indirectly). Applied to universities, this could mean that more scholarships are offered to nursing and teaching students, etc, versus finance majors who are just going to get into investment banking to make money. This is just off the top of my head so feel free to argue back to refine this.
Make it openly available to everyone and give more challenge lvl when they Test upward
An interview with michael sandel?! I watched his entire series on justice on youtube (uploaded by harvard) and like this guy a lot! He's an excellent speaker and communicator! Damn you are getting famous haha
If you're in UK (or can VPN there) I recommend a BBC4 (a radio channel in the UK) series of him talking to people about philosophical issues. It's really good.
@@srelma is it a playlist of 61 videos posted by the channel "book face"? And no, i do not live in the uk and neither do i have a vpn
i am almost half finished reading this book. and i can assure you that this book is without a doubt most touching to the heart book i have ever read.
Such in teresting questions! Really worth listening to.
Interesting discussion, and good job pressing him with questions. I both agree with him and disagree with him. Let us take the casino magnate example. I agree with him that the casino magnate does not morally deserve his wealth he accumulates. But as long as he is doing so through free agreement and no coercion, whether he deserves the wealth of not is irrelevant. It is not moral, it is also not immoral. It is not a moral issue. What would be immoral, would be denying the magnate the wealth he has accumulated through freely entered, forceless gambling.
true, but the problem is that with the wealth the mangnate accumulated he is now a lot more able to shape the society in a way that benefits him. Money equals power and this gives the magnate a lot more influence over the society as a nurse. I haven`t finished the episode so I am not sure if this argument does come up, but consider this: If you are a gifted basketball player, writer, scientist, public speaker or a great leader (what ever that means), which makes you the head of a big company: would you still do what you do if you only made as much money as a nurse? Probably, because doing what they are good at gives most people joy.
I think the point being made lies more clearly on the opposite side of the coin, where someone is poor or genuinely struggling "on merit", then surely it becomes a moral question. Because the well being of some individuals are at play. So if a perfectly meritocratic society rewards some in spades while it let's others struggle, then surely we can conceive of a more moral system. I'm not sure this is Michael's argument exactly but it seems sensible to me.
Gambling and free will are an oxymoron. Going by that logic, you could say it's immoral to deny a drug lord the wealth he's accumulated through people "freely and forcelessly" becoming addicts.
It seems like we agree, that the magnate's accumulation of money is not a moral issue. But it's only the accumulation of the money that is not of moral interest. So in principle, he is entitled to earn all that money. But money isn't isolated from morality at all. The more money you have the more potential your money has to do good and proportionately responsibility grows. The details are a rather political question, however there must be a point where it is of moral importance that your business does nothing valuable for society. (I'd strongly argue that a teacher is of more moral worth than a casino owner for society) And that's where the state's right to redistribute wealth for society's benefit overwhelms the magnate's (in principle!) rightfully earned money.
We have gambling regulations for good reason. There is no such thing as 'freely entered' or 'forceless' gambling, so your example falls apart. Let's try to find a better example: say a really good literature teacher, who gets her students higher grades, a more nuanced understanding of the work, and does it all in faster than usual time. Would it be moral to deny her the wealth she gained in tuition fees? Why did I go to this example? Because it's something which actually is freely entered and forceless... until you realize that it isn't. There is going to be more prestige attached to that class, parents insisting their children learn there, job applicants feeling they need that class on their resume and so on. Can you think of any 'job' which _actually_ involves freely entered and forceless exchange of goods and services? Assuming you can't, the real question to ask then becomes: what moral duty do the magnate and the literature teacher have to the society which pushed people towards them and therefore led to their success?
Merit might not be fair, but it is the best engine for progress we've got. And yes, we've tried systems that decide who's more "worthy" and "deserving" of their wealth.
If your idea of progress hurts my interests, in what sense is it progress?
@@jojomojojones if you spend your time doing apologetics for the second most genocidal ideology in human history, maybe your interests should be impeded.
@@jojomojojones That's the point, meritocracy is not MY idea of progress, it is of the market and voluntary members of that market. One might find oneself at a disadvantage in that matket, but is it the market's fault that consumers don't find one's services all that valuable monetarily ? Would it be fairer if they were forced to find value in one's services ? Fairer to whom ?
Shantanu Tomar it is your idea that using markets to allocate resources is progress. That’s what I’m against. Try to keep up.
@@jojomojojones All right, what is your idea of economic progress then ?
Such a good conversation. Up to the algorith.
Great video quality Alex!
If you like this, you might like Bruce Waller’s Against Moral Responsibility and The Stubborn System of Moral Responsibility, as well as Creating Freedom by Raoul Martinez
Did you mean Rick Waller?
@@bonnie43uk Why would he mean Rick Waller?
I love how clearly Michael Sandel is, his speech is always translucent. He is arguing Merit is the new form of false claims to superiority.
Yeah, but it's non sequitur to say therefore a meritocracy is not "good". It has this flaw. But who's to say it's not the least flawed of all possible societies?
@@PhysicsPolice Who's to say? Anyone with the ability to speak?
Archeon Wanlorn “who’s to say” is a colloquial idiom that, in this case, I intended to mean “it has not been demonstrated that”
Is your generation really as stupid as your comment and most of the comments here, or is this just some kind of weird Twilight-Zone-like outlier?
@@PhysicsPolice Omg... I hope you are being sarcastic.
Very interesting video as always, nice job guys.☘
was just thinking about this, interesting conversation.
A "Just society?" What you consider "Just" May be different than what someone else considers "Just".
"May"
So justice is subjective rather than objective?
@@CJ-xm5kz you're conflating absolute morality with objective morality. What is moral/just objectively entirely based on a subjective framework. A simple example being wellbeing.
@@darkscot1338 I get that, however justice and morality are connected but not the same thing, also I wasn't conflating absolute morality with objective morality, I never even mentioned morality
@@CJ-xm5kz a justice system is based on a morality. I never said they were the same thing but if the basis of your morality is different then your basis for justice is also different. Essentially the justice system is the systematic tool we use to enforce the more extreme side of immorality within any particular moral system, whether it be based on well being, the whim of a god etc
“The Meritocracy Trap” by Daniel Markovits is also a great read
left wing BS
@@pablorages1241 Nope, a pretty decent counter to standard right-wing propaganda. Although that's not saying much, right-wing propaganda only works on idiots or people who stand to benefit from the status quo.
Cosmic Skeptic, Wow, you do so much! Great interview! 👍💞💞✌😷🎃
Loved this interview. Today, Sam Harris released his interview with Michael Sandel on his podcast and I would recommend that as a follow-up to this conversation. It goes much more breadth first than depth first and covers more ground.
Sam Harris is very flawed tho
@@shabolealquesimi9420 to some extent everyone is, but compared to most i would disagree with your assessment of Harris. At any rate, your response seems very irrelevant to my comment.
Get Aron Ra on this podcast on simply in a video. I would love to get a conversation between you two because of how different your approaches are.
Why would anyone looked down upon someone who's following all the rules to succeed but for some reason they don't? I look down upon those who want success without putting in the work.
I don't care who you look down on. Now what?
Thank you, Alex, for doing the work that you do. My two-cents regarding this episode: I think a question is missing: What is the measure of success? In the example of the Olympic runners - the measure at the Olympics is the first one past the finish line. The faster runner won. Where is there an example of "who worked harder than the other" as its standard? How do you balance result vs merit? There is no justice - there just is.
Looks like I may be thinking about the tyranny of merit slightly differently. There are two things I have against merit or more specifically the notion of a meritocratic society is in the idea that it produces more of a competitive society rather than a collaborative one and the way merit is used to not think about the fortunate circumstances that may have played a role in someone's success. This isn't to say that competition is bad, but that I think on a societal level collaboration should be the main thing driving us. In regards to fortunate circumstances, Veritasium has a wonderful video on luck and merit and that video will do a better job at explaining what I mean than I ever could.
I feel.as though Michael had to de-rail his entire view on order to preserve his view of criminal justice
Initially when I heard the premise, I assumed it will be something similar to what Derek from Veritasium posted about a week ago. But it wasn't quite the same. In both cases, my initial reaction is to object to this position, but why ... I can't put it in words exactly what's my objection and I start thinking, that is just because I'm against such reality. PS. This is why I watch this channel, it always provoke me to take a deeper look on a given point, regardless if I agree, or not!
That is my problem as well. I do not believe in free will and I cannot reconcile that with a meritocratic society, yet I also cannot concieve of a one where such a notion is not applied. To be more precise, I think perhaps the closest we can get to an answer regarding this issue is either a sort of heavy UBI (universal basic income) implementation as base level monetary condition so as to compensate for at least some of the bad cards dealt for some, which itself constitues a wide range of problems and is not at all an easy task even though completely justified, or, to simply handwave away this conundrum and continue doing what we're doing on the basis of "it doesn't work in practice and people will not feel adequately rewarded in the absence of meritocracy" etc. I seriously think about it and the more I do so, the more I feel as though, besides some slight alterations to the system and some turns and tweaks, meritocracy is the best version of incentives and "choosing people" we have. At least a modiefied version of it (obviously there is tremendous room for improvement). But in princinple, there is no way in which I can reconcile the realization of the inexistence of free will with the continuation of a meritocratic system. It just seems diabolical.
Id argue that while free will doesn’t exist, Humans do behave in a way where it effectively does exist. People still effectively “choose” to do things, so I don’t think that should play a role in this argument. Yeah, how one is born and luck do, but not the absence of free will. A world with free will and one without are pretty much identical in how they work, and I don’t think the argument for meritocracy changes. People do and will behave in their everyday actions as if free will die exist. You do too. So just arguments here should take this into account.
@@veloxlupus303 I think I understand your viewpoint but yiu have to recognize that whether or not something seems like it is the case does not necessarily mean we have to also act in accordance with it. In other words, people act as though free will exists yet don't you think by feeding into this false, illusory narrative, we are part of the problem (not you and I per se, but those that sit in the spot where they can talk about it and perhaps influence things). I mean, if you think about it, even though everyone acts as if effort or other aspects of human character can be influenced freely, we know that it is not the truth.
_"In both cases, my initial reaction is to object to this position, but why ... I can't put it in words exactly what's my objection"_ This is a common thing, and it has a name: moral dumbfounding. The most common example of moral dumbfounding is having a moral intuition against a case of incest from which all potential causes of harm have been removed (age imbalances, offspring, societal normalization, etc.).
Daedric Dragon there some parts where the non-existence of free will should come into play, but I’m just pointing out that there are many places where we do essentially have free will and we do act according to it. Wait, consider an analogy. Radioactive decay is a fundamentally random process: an atom will decay with an exactly random probability that is completely impossible to predict. But if you have a million atoms, I can tell you pretty much exactly the exponential decay curve of the million atoms (so how the bulk behaves). So the analogy here is with the brain: it’s fundamentally on a molecular level deterministic, but “free will” is an emergent property whereby the brain acts effectively as if it had it (even tho it really doesn’t).
What an interesting guest! Keep going Alex
What we ignore like an elephant in the room is how devastatingly demotivating is to 'contest' on base of results. I do agree that meritocracy is not optimal and we must turn it into something like 'abundancy' coupled with 'the appointment of those who have the greatest desire to do the funciton', but that is now completely alien to most people. What is more practical is that it might create a tons of motivation if we would see, for a change, that effort is really proportionally rewarded by money & honor. So I would certainly go for the 'effort olympics'. And of course the whole discussion about the basketball players and their 'merit' vs the nurse, that is great stuff!
The dollars we get for something only reflects moral to a degree. The foremost factor involved is always the satisfaction of a human desire. Sadly, humans have desires that lead to bad consequences all the time.
And we clearly don't live in a world where the economic value of labour equates to the social value of such labour.
Michael RCH that’s because socially value is subjective
Robert Parker Subjective like speed limits are subjective though. It's clear when they are wrong. I think it would hard to argue that a hedge fund billionaire is actually worth a million nurses in terms of social benefit.
@@michaelrch That's a very good thought
@@michaelrch I could absolutely argue that, first of all where are all of these nurses located. If they are all in the same place then they aren't very valuable and in many cases could be counterproductive. The attack on hedge fund managers, who I have no love for, assumes that they are in an office answering phone calls from 9 till 4 every day and don't actually do anything. That's not true. Does the nurse need a hospital to work in? If so who will build it? Who will pay for it? Who will arrange the financing for the hospital, and the equipment, and the businesses that supply the hospitals. The economy is a lot more complex than just looking at what 2 people do when the effects of what each person do is wildly different
40:00 CosmicSkeptic This, I believe, is the key question........ *Why do we value what we do* (greater effort or greater accomplishment or whatever it is that we do). It is the *why* and I believe the answer may be quite tricky to answer on the deepest level. On the practical level, it's easy to answer......because to reward laziness and complacency harms a society's progress.
You do a good job of showing how his position is inconsistent without determinism. Which is tragic, because it would almost trivially follow from that. I was kind of rooting for him to get there.
A very nice discussion. It's nice to see such a live debate with actual challenges and content. I would like to suggest the followup thoughts: 1. An interesting question raising from this discussion is how come effort is often more appreciated than talent ? Personally I think there's an intuitive sense, that by itself, talent is "weaker" than work ethic. E.g: a talented runner who never trains could never reach the results of an ungifted runner who does train, it is only when the 2 are combined, we often see talent (or altogether chance) being the one tilting the balance. Beyond comparing the value of these qualities, the ability to strive regardless of an immediate reward, is a generic quality, it does not depend on a specific circumstance but serves in a broader sense, therefore has a possible greater effect (on an individual or a society). 2. For the part about the crime and a morally deserving punishment, an important thing to keep in mind is the effects of crime on society rather than on an individual committing the crime. I think there are primarily 2 implications: Direct effects such as actual safety, or a sense of safety and an indirect effect, a potential motivation to avoid performing criminal acts.
I deserve to be loved
I think so too :D
John loves you
🤗
I don't think so. I don't think anyone "deserves" to be loved.
@@Nicolai_Apeiros actually, love is an emotion whose evolutionary purpose is to increase our happiness *(and to make us fuck).* That's why I'd say that anyone who is good at making others happy deserves to be loved! :D
I really liked the premise of the argument and the first few minutes of this interview. But it was really weird when Michael said that the alternative to a meritocracy was... A better meritocracy? There are so many implications that could be discussed if we imagine a society that actually doesn't value merit as we do now. Maybe equality and merit really are antithetic. Kinda feels like a missed opportunity to say something revolutionary.
The thing is that total equality kinda imposible to achieve. You see, people as individuals are different by nature so they can't be molded in a totaly egalitarian society. What the philosopher's in general try to achieve is the best way to get is time most just system (yes, even Marx, he wasnt an advocate for total egalitarianism as some believe, because that's imposible). Equality doesnt mean justice.
I think it's like comprehensive school that specifically aimed to eliminate social inequalities in social mobility. In other words, reformed meritocracy. But I doubt it'll be popular system.
Thank you Alex for putting prof. Sandell into the same position he puts his students in: pressing people to consider the consistency of their arguments!
People mix "effort" and "merit" because of a sense of justice (someone that puts more effort should be corresponded by the same level of merit) in the same way people feel that good things should happen to good people. Still I would add that "effort" implies more skills than just being good at the task. Using the example you gave in the interview: practicing 12 hours every day, denounces patience and discipline. And a last note is that I think people like "effort" because it reflects character growth. "Merit" may distinguish who is the best, but growth shows who has better than before. It seems a very different view on life has whole. Anyways, great video and fantastic interview has always!
Life is fundamentally unfair. So many people who could have been successful have died, or not been born. I haven't finished the video, so you may have covered this, but the crux as laid out seems to be that attitudes towards success in a meritocracy are the problem. So what is the solution? Hold back those who believe they are better so they aren't mean to their "lessers"? It sounds like a non-issue
It’s about distributing gains more broadly because we recognize how much luck is involved. Do we want a society where first place gets everything and second place and down get nothing or do we want a society where everyone in the race gets the same or some distribution between the two.
@@jojomojojones If you press me I would go for the "gold gets everything" rather than "everyone gets the same". But I like the current "gold gets much, silver lesser and so on". And there are more incentives than money. It is important what you value. I don't want to be the fastest sprinter or the greatest bankster I am really happy to be the best uncle and maybe some day No. 1 dad. ;)
Finntinus so you’re cool with there being a handful of people controlling all the resources and everyone else pounds sand and dies or lives as wage-slaves? I can’t believe that’s your vision of a good world.
@@jojomojojones I live quiet fine as a "wage-slave". I live much better than my ancestors in socialist Germany have lived and that was just 30 years ago... even my grandfather lives so much better now than he lived in the GDR. There he couldn't live up to his full potential but as we became part of the FRG he could. In the GDR the "wage gap" wasn't really there.... because everyone was poor. In the FRG the "wage gap" is huge but even the poor have a better living standart than most of the GDR citizens had. I am not "cool" with a handful of people "controlling" all the resources but I am absolutely against "the state" controlling every aspect of live. Redistribution of wealth is allmost everytime theft. We could talk about people "gaming the system" like some wallstreet banksters do but most of people earned their wealth so let them have it. People who want to bring the revolution nowadays are entiteled brats in my opinion. At least here in West-Europe.
@@jojomojojones you're arguing for a system that takes part of wealth from people who got it by the virtue of having abilities others volunteer to reward and gives to people whose work isn't as valued by free people. Even if this system was controlled by completely benevolent and moral bureaucrats (which is impossible), what's more tyrannical?
Sandel's entire argument towards incentives fails for me on a couple of grounds. Firstly, the incentive argument is an entirely practical argument, which he himself points out is separate from any argument towards the justice of the system, so its improper and irrelevant to try and rebut the argument on moral grounds. Suppose that meritocracy were the most insidious system ever designed by man. That says nothing about its efficacy or practicality. If you want to make a moral argument, make one, but trying to rebut a practical argument with one is a waste of time. Secondly, and this is a more personal gripe, but I see no argument for why he or his pet authority should be able to stand above the rest of us, sanctimoniously judging what we ought to value and what we ought to do. See, the thing often missed about arguments like this is that a market is not a singular authority, certainly not in the same way a government, church or other rulimg body is. A market, at its most basic level, is the result of people with no inherent authority over one another exchanging goods or services. As such, it is functionally the neutral position, in the same way atheism is in religious matters. Sambel's system requires some kind of an authority to suppress the natural meritocracy that emerges from any competitive system. He attempts to justify this with his example of the slot machine owner vs the teacher, but his example is full of holes. It ignores the effects of supply and demand (or implies them unjust without argument). There are many more teachers than slot machine tycoons, so naturally that has an effect on prices. It incorrectly assumes that a low price implies that we do not value something. Water for example, is one of the cheapest commodities on the market, yet no one would be stupid enough to suggest we don't value it. He ignores factors external to the market (ie IP laws and government regulations) that artificially inflate the slot machine owners assets by suppressing competitors. All of these holes, just in his first points, and Alex offers almost no pushback on anything. I'm only about 12 minutes in, so maybe it gets better later, but I think I'm done with this one.
He's pointing out the immorality of a meritocracy and why he believes it's not the way to go. But if you're someone who doesn't care about the morality of a system then what difference does it make what system we have?
@@exiledfrommyself If you define a system to be morally superior to another if the former grants higher wellbeing to the people living in it, then even the moral argument doesn't stand. Of course an ideal utopian socialist society would be morally superior, but that can't be achieved in the place we call reality, and trying to achieve it results in a something way worse than the market system.
@@M4nu3l90F Look, he explained according to his moral system why he believes a meritocracy is immoral. If you have different moral system then you might disagree with him. My point is if you remove morality from a system then what difference does it make what system we have? Anything goes.
@@exiledfrommyself - I find his argument full of holes and fundamentally not honest. He's tearing down a strawman. I've not heard anyone defend meritocracy make the claims he makes. I'm not a fan of utopian individuals. It's impossible to be utopian and honest at the same time. That's what I've observed. Utopians don't care what the cost of their system is to others.
@@NotGoodAtNamingThings He's saying that system is not moral. If you don't care about the morality within a system then his arguments wouldn't fly with you. And if you don't care about morality what difference does it make what system is in place? What is all this talk about Utopia? Where did he mention a Utopia? They're talking about the subject of his book - a meritocracy which he finds immoral.
You guys talk so much sense.
Interesting discussion. Thank you.
We need to work less(ecology, labor welfare etc) and share more. And we all deserve what we need(food, education etc) no matter who we are(criminal etc). Wealth is also created outside of employment and harm are made by some jobs(casino, meat industry etc).
So money is the benefit of merit? Um, a lot of people would disagree with that idea, me for one. Money does not motivate me.
Same here...
@@stewstudboy welcome to capitalism
Great discussion, Alex. I suppose many will flock to the political applications of whatever conclusions one may glean, but I, who have always thought myself a proponent of true (egalitarian) meritocracy, was more excited at having my dogmas potentially dethroned.
I think they ended up talking past each other because Alex thought Sandel disagreed with meritocracy because he disbelieves in free will like Alex, when in reality, Sandel’s ideas aren’t going that far down the rabbit hole. He’s talking more about how our current meritocracy incentivizes the wrong activities, and requires reform - but should not be thrown out entirely. It was odd to hear Alex defending ‘effort’ as being meritorious, though. Sandel was right to point out that effort doesn’t have any more worth than inherit skill in a strictly deterministic framework. Giving Alex the benefit of the doubt, I assume he realized part-way through the conversation that they were arguing past one-another with the free will stuff, so he decided to shift gears and instead argue the point using Sandel’s priors to keep the conversation moving.
Reminds me of Sam Harris conversation with Daniel Markovits about the failure of meritocracy.
Brave Soldi3r they’re orchestrated.
Alex, how diligent someone is, is also nothing they chose, they are simply blessed with greater conscientiousness in the same way others are blessed with greater height or intelligence. However, the thinking through what values you want in society and trying to incentivise those beyond what GDP says would be a good idea, if we all agree that there is nothing the recipients of these rewards ‘deserve’. They are simply lucky to possess the right attributes and skills.
It was hard to follow on some of the things they said, but I think I got the gist of the conversation. Very interesting topic though more on this in the future plz!
Your intr was pretty good because it immediately identified the circular reasoning fallacy. Competition may mean market competition where if one company fails, the people of the company go work for other companies, or between predators competing for prey. The second definition contains the distinction of predator prey so using that second association results in circular reasoning fallacy in the argument. All this is observable by the 5 min mark.
Weird that Sandel doesn't get Alex's good point about retributive punishment, go figure...
Time stamp
Not that far into the video yet, but I'm willing to bet a meritocratic regulated capitalism with basic income is way better than any alternate system he will propose.
I agree 100%
@@NotGoodAtNamingThings It seems like he was defining meritocracy as "whoever succeeds deserved it because they're better than everyone else" rather than "give each role to the most capable applicant". His definition doesn't seem very useful.
@@steve112285 - I agree with that too. It seems he's not trying to find a less abusive meritocracy, but instead abandoning the idea altogether. But I haven't heard any word yet of how you build his utopia.
Isn't it un-meritocratic to take my money and give to someone else in the form of a basic income?
@@xenoblad - In the most absolutist version possible, sure. In an Ayn Rand version, absolutely. Is that the only way to look at it? No.
Regardless of one’s circumstances, you do get to choose how you respond. It’s an utter meritocracy and it does so well…
So, isn't a person who was born liking a job that is considered "worthy" by some authority (strong parental instinct, for example, pretty common thing) just lucky to have aspirations that are valuable to society at that moment? There are also limited numbers of "valuable" jobs, wouldn't the ability to get such job when there's low demand for it still determined by luck? Why is it more fair than a billionaire basketball player? I'm inclined to say that chance is such an everpresent force that you can't really avoid including it into the concept of "moral" without creating an abstraction that conflicts not just with human nature, but with the laws of physics and mathematics. A thing to note: teacher is not a job that couldn't be automated in the future making them obsolete to society, like many other previously vital careers.
@Mtpimenta what?
I don't necessarily agree with your thing to note (why can't people learn from non humans?), nor do I see how it applies to your point so even if you are wrong about it I don't think it matters.
Or actually I may have misread your double negative there haha, I suppose I may actually agree with you.
@@lucasmoreirasantos8377 well maybe. I just can figure out what hes saying. Thats my problem.
@@chriswinkler4663 - I pieced it together through keywords, I think. He's essentially saying that if we remove "merit" (or "deserving"), we digress to something "less" than we are today, and the only people who want to remove "merit" from the "system" are those who don't have any "merit" and can't compete with those who do. His supposition is circular logic that implies that those who are poor "deserved" it because they had no "merit" and the reason we know they had no "merit" is because they're poor. Also that people deserve the genetics/IQ they're born with. Because that makes sense...
I don't buy all the talk about moral and purpose here. It's quintessentially subjective and out of context when discussing general topics. It's of no use to focus, for instance, on the purpose of a university, because that's arbitrarily imposed (Harvard's Founders decided it). 31:00 That's the objection i would have made too (but coming from a different perspective). In my opinion, it all gets solved once we get rid of the word "deserve", which is entangled with the false mith of meritocracy and control. Not even the worst serial killer "deserves" to be put in jail, but rather we HAVE to put him in jail in order to protect ourselves. A similar consideration goes for the word "punishment", which doesn't imply any sort of (re)educative purpose. If you punish someone, say the serial killer, you do it for your own satisfaction, not because you have to. 38:00 Being able to work hard is also a gift, just like being smart. That's why no one "deserves" to be rewarded too. We should give rewards with the sole purpose of pursuing people's happiness (individual or collective).
An excellent discussion!
I believe that giving more value to effort rather than to merit seems to be quite natural for us. Particularly, when effort is put to overcome ones limitations or unfairness. I guess it is the reason why we love underdogs and Cinderellas stories. But, I am not fully convinced that it is just the pure effort or the dedication that we value (or we should value for that matter). I think we value effort as long as there is some form of improvement or progression towards a goal. Without that, you may actually get the opposite reaction, even from your parents. Here is an example. Suppose a 39 years old 5'7 feet tall wakes up every day at 4AM to train for 5 to 6 hours to become a better basketball player. At first, it is clear that people will commend him for the effort he puts to follow his dreams and become a better player, and they will also probably value him more than they would his younger friend who is 10 times better than him. Now, if he keeps training as hard year after year with the whole purpose of making it to say the NBA, not even his parents would commend his effort.
The common good is not necessarily a meaningful term. It is regularly assumed as such by consequentialists and in particular by social choice theorists, but this is hasty work.
What kind of good is necessarily a meaningful term?
@@tomisaacson2762personal (subjective) good.
It seems that Sandel is using a bit of slight of hand here: arguing against the problems with 'hubris of success' (one part of the meritocratic system) but labels this a problem with the entire meritocratic system. Teach people to recognise how much luck plays in their success/failure, be humble, and not be overly proud Just because chance plays a role and some people don't apprecite this, doesnt mean meritocracy is causing tyranny.
This comment of yours connects very well with Veritasium's video on what's at the center of success. (I'm very sure you've seen it too). I agree 100% with you, the problem I see is that sometimes the nature of one's success may be hidden to everyone except the person which is successful, which is very convenient. So as you said: Teaching people to be self-aware and humble in the face of success, honors and recognition might pave the way to a better system that rewards people for their efforts.
On the question of valuing effort vs. talent when assesing excellence, I would pose the following; We value them because they are heuristics for the potential to deliver extraordinary contributions to a common good . This is obvious in the case of talent (e.g. a naturally talented doctor/researcher is seen as having a higher potential to provide novel cures), but this notion equally applies when considering effort. I say this because effort is indicative of the kind of dedication/attitude that can lead to extraordinary contribution in its own right. Further, I would say we might lean towards valueing effort above talent because of scope of the potential it implies. Someone who shows talent has the increased potential within that narrow field they are talented in, but a dedicated/driven/hardworking person has the potential to make significant contributions in whatever activity they focus on. Finally, when it comes to excellent students for instance, it is arguable that strife is the best teacher, so a student that naturally does well without studying very hard isn't learning/developing those skills and character traits that will help them get beyond where their raw talent might take them. Once their talent has reached its limits, they might just stagnate or even break. A hard working person on the other hand has arguably already demonstrated their ability to exceed their natural talent and hence could reasonably be considered a more likely candidate to keep excelling further. In this line I would also argue that music and sports are potentially flawed areas to look at as the way these are practiced generally results in the limits of talent being reached fairly early on with significant commitment and practice being required of anyone who pursues these, especailly given the team/group nature of both music and sports. P.S. Sandel is absolutely amazing and I can't wait to read his new book!
Great teacher♥️
Meritocratic hubris is not a necessary result of a meritocracy.
And there is not really any alternative for meritocracy, unless we accept even greater wrongs.
@@user255 yes there is. A mixed economy is already deviated from a meritocracy. In a true meritocracy disability payments wouldnt exist for disabled people who provide 0 economic output. Yet disability payments are universal in western "meritocratic" societies. We live in systems that cant be reduced to words like "meritocracy" or "socialism". We need to stop this trend of slogan politics and evaluate each policy based on its merit.
@@xsuploader No, meritocracy and socialism have nothing to do with each other. In pure meritocracy people who have no effort, talents, etc, can still have social security. They are just in the bottom of the power hierarchy.
@@user255 I have 2 things to say. First I never said meritocracy and socialism had anything to do with one another. Maybe try reading slower. Second "Meritocracy (merit, from Latin mereō, and -cracy, from Ancient Greek κράτος kratos 'strength, power') is a political system in which economic goods and/or political power are vested in individual people on the basis of talent, effort, and achievement, rather than wealth or social class" A perfect meritocracy doesnt have social security. Social security is an equalising force that adds power to people who did not earn it on their own merits. This is the antithesis of meritocracy. The moment you introduce welfare you are moving into a mixed economy.
@@xsuploader Disability payments are one form of socialism, thus I mentioned it in broader context. I agree 100% on the definition you gave for meritocracy. Meritocracy gives order for pay checks, but not absolute sizes for the checks. How could it? It's up to our values anyway. So, who could earn zero pay check in pure meritocracy? I think only dead one.