I’ve tried to bring this up before, but I personally don’t believe everyone should be treated the same.
In an ideal world where we had an objective way to measure this, I would prefer that we lived in an absolute meritocracy.
Some people are a better fit for a particular purpose than other people due to racial advantage, gender advantage, physical advantage, age advantage, or any other number of advantages that they have been gifted by the miracle of life and talent, or that they have earned from dedication and struggle.
In my ideal world, if you remove all of the things that are not important to the task at hand, and only judge based on who is most fit for the task at hand, then the people who are the best fit would get the most appropriate reward for their capacity.
As a nonwhite male IT worker, my ability to lift heavy objects is secondary to my ability to fix a printer. If a female can fix printers better than I can, she’s more than welcome to have the job at the same pay they would have paid me for it.
Imo an absolute meritocracy would first require a society of absolute equity. Otherwise how would you know if someone is actually more inherently better at something or if they just had more opportunity?
I think meritocracies are a nice idea, but they’ve mostly been supported by societal elites throughout history because they know it’s easy to score when you’re born on third base.
A society of absolute equity is impossible. Some people will be taller, faster, smarter, more charismatic, dumber or any other adjective you wanna name. Trying to decrease that variance by limiting systemic advantages is one thing. But, it will never lead to truly equal opportunity and/or outcome for everyone. Thats a type of optimism that requires a high level of ignoring the objective reality of the world. Relationship based opportunity availability will also always be a thing. Limiting it via legislative action could curb it to a degree but never completely. Thats just not a realistic ideal. You could implement some Harrison Bergeron esq limiters but at that point I wouldn’t want to live in that world. My sole non trolling response so far.
That was kinda my point about absolute equality. There will always be people with disabilities and therefore absolute equity and absolute meritocracies are mostly utopian philosophical concepts. Plus, if we’re doing idealist delights why bother with anything but luxury space communism?
I’ve tried to bring this up before, but I personally don’t believe everyone should be treated the same.
In an ideal world where we had an objective way to measure this, I would prefer that we lived in an absolute meritocracy.
Some people are a better fit for a particular purpose than other people due to racial advantage, gender advantage, physical advantage, age advantage, or any other number of advantages that they have been gifted by the miracle of life and talent, or that they have earned from dedication and struggle.
In my ideal world, if you remove all of the things that are not important to the task at hand, and only judge based on who is most fit for the task at hand, then the people who are the best fit would get the most appropriate reward for their capacity.
As a nonwhite male IT worker, my ability to lift heavy objects is secondary to my ability to fix a printer. If a female can fix printers better than I can, she’s more than welcome to have the job at the same pay they would have paid me for it.
Imo an absolute meritocracy would first require a society of absolute equity. Otherwise how would you know if someone is actually more inherently better at something or if they just had more opportunity?
I think meritocracies are a nice idea, but they’ve mostly been supported by societal elites throughout history because they know it’s easy to score when you’re born on third base.
A society of absolute equity is impossible. Some people will be taller, faster, smarter, more charismatic, dumber or any other adjective you wanna name. Trying to decrease that variance by limiting systemic advantages is one thing. But, it will never lead to truly equal opportunity and/or outcome for everyone. Thats a type of optimism that requires a high level of ignoring the objective reality of the world. Relationship based opportunity availability will also always be a thing. Limiting it via legislative action could curb it to a degree but never completely. Thats just not a realistic ideal. You could implement some Harrison Bergeron esq limiters but at that point I wouldn’t want to live in that world. My sole non trolling response so far.
That was kinda my point about absolute equality. There will always be people with disabilities and therefore absolute equity and absolute meritocracies are mostly utopian philosophical concepts. Plus, if we’re doing idealist delights why bother with anything but luxury space communism?
Meritocracy is inherently the most fair.