The founding principles and ideals of this country are solely based on the idea that if you work hard then you can succeed. In a Aristotelean sense, those who deserve more should receive more and vice versa. Our system rewards merit, generally speaking. Seems pretty fair, doesn't it? Though, in America it is a much more complicated issue than that.
Today, there is a significant gap between the rich and the poor. There is much heated debate on the best way to solve this problem. Some people want to take from the rich and give to the poor. And others think we should just leave the system the way it is.
I try to challenge myself to think of different solutions. For example, a good question that one might ask themselves is, "What would Aristotle do?" As we touched on in class, Aristotle is known as "The Philosopher" and his philosophy heavily influenced the current system we have today in America. So what would Aristotle do? Would he say that we should take from the rich? Or that the system is just fine?
The answer is neither. Aristotle is much better than that, and I challenge people to think that we as citizens of this great country are much better than that. What I believe Aristotle would say, is first point out why neither of these solutions are plausible. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor would not follow Aristotle's philosophy whatsoever. And assuming that we agree with Aristotle on what is fair and what is just, then taking from the rich and giving to the poor would not be considered a fair or just thing. But yet, if we do nothing, then the system will eventually collapse as the rich will get richer and the poor poorer.
Then, Aristotle might say that America as a country should focus on the goal of equal opportunity. Now clearly, things are never going to fully be equal, as people have certain unchangeable predispositions. However, if we still focus on the general aspect of opportunity, such as a good, free public education system, then we could grow closer towards our goals. Aristotle would insist on the importance of education for a society. If we help educate people and help get people started, then we give them a chance to work hard and make a good life for themselves.
This is what I think Aristotle might say. Although, I am not nearly as smart as Aristotle and probably never will be. Unfortunately, Aristotle can't come back to life and solve all of our problems, that is up to us. We should probably get around to doing that.
Morgan Burman
I believe the question that needs to be addressed is whether or not America is truly a meritocracy. While the middle class of America is shrinking in number and the gap between the lower and upper classes grows wider, Aristotle would not consider this phenomenon a problem if the good people were getting better and the bad people were getting worse.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this clearly is not the case. Not to say that all rich people are bad, or that all poor people are good, but as you said, socioeconomic, racial, and gender predispositions into which we are born highly influence the amount of wealth that we will be able to obtain. So, despite our merit, wealth has many other factors that determine its distribution among the American population.
Therefore, I believe Aristotle would criticize America’s claim to be a meritocracy. Wealth is not distributed according to merit, but according to the predispositions that we have no control over. Thus, Aristotle would condemn America as an unjust society.
Despite the myth of the American dream and the promise of equal opportunity, Americans are bound by the state they are born into, with very little hope of escaping to climb the social ladder, especially as the chasm between classes grows and the middle class shrinks. America by practice cannot be a meritocracy, despite its promise of equal opportunity.
Michael Scheriger
I largely agree with Scheriger's comment. However, I think that the argument could be made that America actually is a meritocracy, as Burman says, albeit one with flaws, if we compare it to a hypothetical country governed by a vastly different political philosophy and if we are a bit looser with our terms.
ReplyDeleteFor example, say we hypothetically had a country in which you were punished for doing work, or punished according to your merit. We might say that this is the opposite of a meritocracy. America is not like this, nor is any country in the world today, as far as I know. So how do we classify a country like this one? Here at least you can, if you find employment, be rewarded for work you put in. This is at least a common expectation in American culture, that one ought to get paid for working after some sort of contract has been established decreeing so. This may not always be the case, and certainly I would say that payment is not often proportionate to work put in-phrased differently, that merit is not often proportionate to reward- but since at least a minimal payment is required by law and is commonly expected, I believe it could be argued that America is a meritocracy, if a poor example of one.
As far as Aristotle's take on this, I too think that we are far from meeting his standards for distributive justice. I believe he would decry our system for its disproportionate distribution of wealth. He would say that there is great injustice because there is such great imbalance relative to an ideal level.
Aaron Vancil
In order to define meritocracy you have to define merit itself and create a 'just' value system distributing this merit. I think in a capitalistic society, overall productivity or greater good is what determines overall merit. However a meritocracy doesn't appear to necessarily be a fair one. A meritocracy is fair if everyone STARTS on the same playing field with the same 'merit' at a base of 0. Clearly in America people are born into merit, or money, and placed into private education systems, and are given leverage in this fictitious meritocracy. It's an illusion.
ReplyDeleteThe ideology that 'people have certain unchangeable predispositions' is a problematic on such that no gene has ever been linked to over all productivity within a system. That's like trying to build a bridge from Florida over the gulf coast to Texas. Thus analysis of particular 'given' ideologies that we 'think' we know must be examined thoroughly before making a conclusion on what is a value system that generates equalized opportunity, proper structure and support for a successful post modern economic nation.
The real predisposition is where people start on the economic ladder. Only if private school was banned and inheriting money was banned and racism ended would people really have fair opportunity. But we all know that's not going to happen. However, giving people a head start in life is going to potentially generate faster advancements in discovery and knowledge as well since basically this fucked up moral system a.k.a our fake meritocracy known as capitalism is generating technology and intellectual advancements, but it's leaving others in the dust as well.