The Case Against Meritocracy - Michael Sandel [2021] | Intelligence Squared
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 май 2024
- In this clip from our 2021 debate 'Michael Sandel vs Adrian Wooldridge on Meritocracy', renowned philosopher Michael Sandel challenges the notion of meritocracy and argues that it may not be as beneficial to our society as we think.
See the full session here: • Michael Sandel vs Adri...
Want to see more videos and virtual events?
✅ Subscribe to this channel and turn on notifications: ruclips.net/user/iqsquare...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligence Squared has established itself as the leading forum for live, agenda-setting debates, talks and discussions around the world. Our aim is to promote a global conversation that enables people to make informed decisions about the issues that matter, in the company of the world's greatest minds and orators.
Follow Intelligence Squared on:
👉 Facebook page: / intelligence2
👉 Twitter page: / intelligence2
📌 Website: www.intelligencesquared.com/
#meritocracy #class #politics #michaelsandel #modernsociety #rewards #intelligencesquared #intelligencesquaredplus #iq2
![Megan Thee Stallion - BOA [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TKQY2ZlIEjY/mqdefault.jpg)
The people attacking him don't even understand what he's saying.
Everyone calling him stupid needs to listen more closely.
He's arguing from a flawed premise, which is why his arguments don't make much sense: his premise is that people who gained power/influence under a meritocracy would equate to a moral reward, which isnt true.
His point that realistically, power being held by a certain class of people has been done before and it was called aristocracy, and that power would be held by those who "merit" it because those who merit more power/influence would have better access to education, ensuring that their "merit" would pass on to their children.
Its a sound argument
The issue with the conclusive argument is that it insists in looking at meritocracy purely as a moral/philosophical exercise.
It asks: if playing fields are leveled, is meritocracy a moral way of attributing reward?
But it hinges on the concept that playing fields are indeed leveled, even though the opening remarks suggest that they are not.
Meritocracy may very well work in a utopia (for you to decide), but in a world inherited from aristocracy it simply reinforces historical inequalities.
It's entirely pointless to discuss meritocracy applied to our societies, because the frameworks required for meritocracy to be a valid moral compass for society do not exist.
Simply stated, meritocracy collapses into hereditary aristocracy.
I'm not sure if B.Johnson falls into that category,.......But, one or two of his past Cabinet may!?
Not true. This assumes that the environment is unchanging and is always in favor of one set of genes and that these genes are passed on from generation to generations perfectly. Even the descendants of Einstein aren't Einstein themselves. And please cite a historical example of a meritocracy that collapsed into a hereditary aristocracy. When? And did they survived and endured through the test of time?
While he is correct in his assessment of the inherent unfairness of the genetic lottery, the "accident of birth", this does not mean that the spoils of a meritochratic system cannot be shared amongst all. The efficiency of a meritochratic system, and the excess it provides, can go onto subsedise the needs of those who are less fortunate in circumstance, those who do not meet strongly any criteria within society that might grant them opportunity.
The morality within meritocracy is not guarenteed by an aderation to the principle, he is right in saying, but by taxing those who are fortunate and those with success, we provide opportunity, we provide resources, to those with skills undesirable, in whichever domain they see fit.
Many people here have a hard time distinguishing an attack from "devils advocate". It is healthy to have concepts like meritocracy be held up to scrutiny, so as to analyze flaws within them. I do not believe this man has any ill will, he is simply probing a concept with extremes to find flaws.
Well said!
I would not have watched this had not the title intrigued me. What intrigued me was how anyone with a smidgeon of intelligence could have started on this journey. At the end of it I realised that the author is one who has an idea and come hell or highwater he'll try to prove it!
It is like every poll . if you ask the right people ,the right question, you can get the "right " answer .
I watch so many debates from Intelligence Squared and I remember this one.
Chicago Economics?
Thoughts from the Ivory tower.
'Ivory towers:- Those who are far removed from the realities of life, yet tell us how to live etc, in a real world they themselves never have'.
Absolutely absurd. Meritocracy isn’t really about morality. It’s about allocating power/positions of prestige to those who are most competent because this is what leads to the most competently run society.
Impossible to separate morality from meritocracy. It's absolutely an issue of morality to intentionally construct a social system of extreme inequality, awarding privilege to those born with traits they didn't choose or earn, and denying them to others on the basis of genetics or the social/economic position of parents able to provide exceptional education. The most competently run society is not some unequivocally best possible, unquestioned moral high point.
@@coachafella If you’d like to believe that, I’m not going to stop you.
@@user-hn9qw7ou8d Well, you did get that right. 🥳
Like Donald Trump?
Re: "Meritocracy isn’t really about morality. It’s about allocating power/positions of prestige to those who are most competent"!
Waaaaal,. that's never going to happen then,....Is it!
I think what we need is an expert ''Juggler', a Juggler who can keep Juggling the the figures, robbing one section of the fiscal pie to pay another, the current 'Juggler' or ''Jugglers' is not fit for purpose!
Obviously, creating Bigger 'Pie's is well beyond the capabilities of those that purport to Govern us!......Or those responsible for creating the 'Pie's' are intent on keeping 'Lions share' for themselves ....... Probably those that Govern us have shares in said 'Pie',...Or series of 'Pies'?....Or am I preaching to the converted?? Lol!
having good qualities that deserve praise, support, etc. : meritorious, worthy. rewarding deserving workers. scholarships for deserving students.
Sure, ofcourse; but what can you do about it?
This is one of the dumbest attacks on meritocracy that there exists.
What happens to those that “win” is irrelevant, because for each “winner” there’s thousands or millions of “losers”. What matters is getting the best results for the “losers”, and that is invariably achieved by having someone competent “win”.
Just a single introductory class to Public Choice will show you how much of our problems are based on the fact that it’s the popular who “win”, and not the competent.
Re: "This is one of the dumbest attacks on meritocracy that there exists."
Exactly!"...He'll be telling us that Men can have Babies next!!
Maybe coming up with another term, or redefining meritocracy in a more useful way would bring more people together on this issue.
Deservingness of the individual is is only one aspect/one argument for recognizing merit. Pragmatics and efficacy, along with optimal outcomes, progress, and even safety are other arguments/reasons. A top surgical, educator, culinary, or laborer position, should be determined through the best methods we have for determining capability & probability of desired outcome.
This man is trying to create his own world. He‘s trying to question everything and ends up comparing things that don’t have any correlation. Too bad for such nice person to be doing this.
Contrary to meritocracy, aristocracy has tendency towards nepotism. A person, who is competent in part due to fortune, is more deserving than an aristocrat, who is incompetent in spite of fortune.
This is part of an excellent series from Michael Sandel ("Justice with Michael Sandel" at the Harvard University youtube channel), one of the great political philosophers of our time.
Agreed! It's a great series of lectures! His book is also great.
Weird, since he comes across as a cretin in this video.
Interesting to listen to if only because it has crystallised in my mind that some people view the world in ONLY a moral sense when they build their mental model of it.
Morality is an important component of humans model of the world but there are many other factors that SHOULD be modelled in before drawing conclusions about what is (on net) 'right'.
Hes starting from the top down that meritocracy in and of itself is bad, yet he cites statistics on college entrances to prove how meritocracy is flawed?
Meritocracy itself assumes that the person best qualified for the role is the right person for the role, it doesn't, nor should it actively, consider other factors. I don't think anyone seriously considers meritocracy at it's purest, undiluted form, to be the only way, but it should be the basis on which we look at and consider how roles are filled and dispersed. Surgeons and pilots are extreme examples, yes you want the most qualified person opening your chest or landing your plane, mainly because if something goes wrong the end result is generally catastrophic.
Shame this well-argued position did not address the contemporary problem of Affirmative Action and DEI hiring. Meritocracy may fair better or no worse in comparison to those policies of hiring.
If you pay these surgeons or pilots the same as other jobs, you'd end up with worse surgeons and pilots.
This has to be the least convincing argument I've ever heard! Did I miss something - perhaps in the introduction to the debate or the wording of the question? It sounded as if he was saying that basing society as much as possible on identifying mental ability would be no better than basing it on the accident of birth. Nonsense!
My interpretation is not so much that Mr. Sandel is talking about what would make better outcomes for society, but instead talking about what is fairly deserved to the individual.
It seems he is saying innate talent is just as much an accident of birth as being born into say, wealth and aristocracy. Therefore, if we believe it isn't just to reward people for simply being born into aristocracy because they had no agency in the matter, then it is likewise not just to reward people for having innate talent.
I think this issue of what outcomes result from our chosen course of action is sort of not really addressed.
To me, Mr. Sandel seems to be making the argument from a hard determinism perspective, which rests on the idea that holding a person morally responsible requires them to make a choice between two, or more, truly possible alternatives. If choice is indeed impossible, then it would be incorrect to hold anyone morally responsible for his or her actions (or reward them for them).
his argument, in my opinion, misunderstands meritocracy. a feudal system of aristocracy would not be a meritocratic system, because one key missing point is that other people weren't given a chance to compete with those who inherited their roles through birth. actually rule through birth is completely not meritocratic. competition between people of their ability to wisely govern is a key point of a meritocracy. otherwise, results can't be fairly measured and compared. simply getting into the one party system in china is itself meritocratic, because the exams are difficult. once you're in, you start at the bottom and have to show your worth, otherwise you won't last long, or you won't really get anywhere.
I like Sandel. He was on with Glenn Loury a while back. I recommend that discussion over this debate. Glenn pushes back in ways that allow Sandel to really elaborate on his claims. That said, I don't agree with Sandel at all, lol. But it's a very interesting conversation nonetheless, imo
Why i have feeling he is pointing toward China,with his statments.
Meritocracy is NOT a “system of rule”. Wealth is not “allocated” it is earned through productive effort, which is rewarded by an exchange of value. I successfully create a new Tech start-up which produces a new product that millions of people want so badly that they’re willing to trade me their dollars for my product, as a consequence i and my shareholders (loyal investors who see the value of my product) become wealthy. It was earned. Nor do i “rule” over anyone. I trade with them voluntarily. Customers are free not to buy my product, employees are free to leave the company. I do not “rule” as a dictator, king or even an elected president may rule with the might of government. I own a business or several which rise or fall based on the value i bring to the table, judged by customers. The economic power that i may amass is earned and it is not the power to “rule” but the power to produce values that may be voluntarily traded for.
I agree. But monopolies and crony capitalism are problems.
@@thomasbentele2468 It depends on what you mean by a “monopoly”. If by monopoly you mean a business that is immune from competition, then i agree that that is a problem, however that can only be the case if government has created special privileges and protections through laws and regulations for the business. The issue is government power. But if you mean by monopoly, any large successful business that is ahead of its competition by considerable market share then i don’t see that as a problem. Businesses should be free to grow as large and as wealthy as their customers demand through the purchase/use of their products and services
This is saying A without saying B. And the B is that no matter how intelligent, wealthy, or privledged someone was born, they still have a claim to the fruits of their labor, their voluntary actions, their effort. Even in case inherited wealth those parents have the right to allocate their resources to their offsprings.
What Michael Sandel is saying invites the notion that you have the right to take it from them, violate their personhood and in a sense appropriate them, in the name of equality. Ends justify the means and that is absolutely the road to hell.
This sounds exactly like the criticism against democracy that it's the worst form of government, except you can't provide a better alternative to democracy. With all the criticisms against meritocracy, do you have a better alternative? I like to hear it. Ok, so meritocracy is all about luck, but how do you remove luck from the equation to make everything fair? It's mission impossible.
How about a UBI? People still work for extra cash, but the necessities of life are covered for everyone.
@@APaleDot Good example!
Why do you assume that rich people are averagely clever?
Merit should be rewarded. The reward serves as an incentive. Without incentives people refuse to work. Such was a case in the USSR which fell apart. Talented people migrated to where they got rewarded with incentives or just refused to work and the society collapsed.
You don't get meritocracy without 100% inheritance tax. With the money in the control of the people instead of the elites then what you get is universal basic income and free necessities. With universal basic income in hand, everyone is taken care of by the state. You will be taken care of and free to do as you please, but in order to gain more wealth to afford the things you want in this life then you will have to contribute to society and build your merit. This system allows everyone access to free education that will allow you to pursue whatever career you desire. Whatever this man is speaking is hogwash. The rich today have inheritance wealth and have all the access they want to whatever they want, the rich today own entire governments and enforce division and they will stay rich while the poor have high chances of remaining poor generationally. Nothing changes without 100% inheritance tax regardless of what political system we are using. All of the specifics of this system are outlined in the political series written by Michael Faust.
Abolish inheritance, same effect
PS no such thing as a 'Right to Life'
Has anyone stopped for a minute and considered the fact that Sandel never carefully considers (at least not explicitly here) what it means to “deserve” something? If he were to do that, he would quickly realize the absurdity of what he is saying.
OMG, not even worth listening to.
This philosopher said the truth at 06:03 . He contends rightly at that moment. Because students from poor families should be granted financial aids so that there's a healthy meritocracy.
Utter foolishness!
First, read books, think, learn to analyse the topic. And then find courage in yourself to speak in audience. It's all the time easy to troll on sofa. Please, be respectful for what others' endeavours were sacrificed!
@@shakhzod8513 I’m guessing you’ve failed at most things, the people who least competent or champagne socialist ever have a problem with meritocracy.
The world is not a nice place and it is far more authoritarian, bleak, corrupt and oppressive than it has ever been if slightly less brutal. That doesn’t change the fact that the people who got humanity to its pinnacle were either there through meritocracy or seized the opportunity.
This guy obviously has strong communist values which he's tried hard to hide. Probably holidays in North Korea.
This guy creates his own ridiculous definition of meritocracy and then dismisses it! How does he make it to this channel?!
It’s incredible these people get to “debate” something when their ideas have resulted in the deaths of millions in the last century alone. And we’re all supposed to listen like they are thoughtful, rational people and not part of an insidious death cult.
Sandel's position is fallacious at best -- and pernicious at worst. He sets up a straw-man argument in favor of meritocracy and then proceeds to attack it. And perhaps he "wins" against the straw-man. But the primary argument in favor of meritocracy is NOT that smart/talented people are more "deserving." The primary argument in favor of meritocracy as an economic/political system is that it motivates exactly the kind of behavior that makes society richer, more functional, more diverse and more inclusive than any other system. It creates a rising tide that lifts all boats. A meritocratic system generates enough surplus wealth to grant resources to those of the least intelligence/talent, even more resources than the efforts of those people actually create. Just consider any alternative. The resulting society will be poorer, and essentially everyone will be worse off. And yes, I understand that I'm assuming some degree of redistribution via taxes/social programs. But that's easy when you discard the false premise that meritocracy is essentially a moral system. It's an economic/political system, which leaves room for supplemental moral values such as redistribution, safety nets, etc. that can be given effect because meritocracy as an economic/political system creates enough wealth for redistribution to occur.