Meritocracy

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Burning ghost
Posts: 2797
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Meritocracy

Post by Burning ghost » October 10th, 2018, 4:16 am

Eduk -

Who do you think has a good reputation, bad plumbers or good plumbers? The point being that generally speaking people are rewarded on merit rather than just heresay.

The judgemenr factir is certainly an embedded fault in a merirocracy, but it is not necessarily a failt with the idea anymore than my own proposed “negative”.

One problem could be with jobs that present little variation of ability in thr population. What merit is there if everyone can do everything? What problems does that bring up?
AKA badgerjelly

Eduk
Posts: 2061
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Meritocracy

Post by Eduk » October 10th, 2018, 4:35 am

The point being that generally speaking people are rewarded on merit rather than just heresay.
Do you have any evidence for this?
Unknown means unknown.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2797
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Meritocracy

Post by Burning ghost » October 10th, 2018, 4:51 am

Eduk wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 4:35 am
The point being that generally speaking people are rewarded on merit rather than just heresay.
Do you have any evidence for this?
Just blind ignorance apparently - meaning that question makes no sense to me.
AKA badgerjelly

Eduk
Posts: 2061
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Meritocracy

Post by Eduk » October 10th, 2018, 5:17 am

I don't understand your reply BG. You are saying people are generally rewarded on merit. I am asking how you know this?
How do you know the reputation of a plumber?
For example few people would say politicians are rewarded mostly on merit. I'm not sure if you believe they are or aren't?
Unknown means unknown.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 517
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Meritocracy

Post by Karpel Tunnel » October 10th, 2018, 5:28 am

Eduk wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 5:17 am
I don't understand your reply BG. You are saying people are generally rewarded on merit. I am asking how you know this?
How do you know the reputation of a plumber?
For example few people would say politicians are rewarded mostly on merit. I'm not sure if you believe they are or aren't?
I think he means 'would be' rewarded, not that they are now. In the hypothetical meritocracy.

Eduk
Posts: 2061
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Meritocracy

Post by Eduk » October 10th, 2018, 5:59 am

Oh I see. I was pointing out the problem with judging merit using the real world as an example. If we are talking about the world as I wish it was then I would reward all maximally. Although of course what reward maximally means is complicated.
Unknown means unknown.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 517
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Meritocracy

Post by Karpel Tunnel » October 10th, 2018, 8:05 am

Eduk wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 5:59 am
Oh I see. I was pointing out the problem with judging merit using the real world as an example. If we are talking about the world as I wish it was then I would reward all maximally. Although of course what reward maximally means is complicated.
Yes, and I think we are all, including the OP, in agreement about it being complicated. To start working it out we need a definition of merit and how it is measured and then how this all gets carried out and by whom. I would think that a meritocracy would almost have to be de facto socialist or bureaucratist, since to ensure merit is what entitles, one would need incredible top down control. You can't just leave this up to individual businesses for example. Nepotism, racism, friendism, networking in general would all come raging into play, as they do now.

Not that I am advocating for some kind of Bureaucratist state, I just can't see a way around it. And I like bringing it up because I think many of the strongest voices for meritocracy tend to be libertarianish people.

And now, having said that, I have to add that I am not NOT in favor of a meritocracy. I certainly think merit should be rewarded and given purview. (two rather different issues). I do think however that the rewards should mainly be in terms of purview, of getting to carry out those actions one is good at.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2797
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Meritocracy

Post by Burning ghost » October 10th, 2018, 10:35 am

Just in case anyone sure what “meritocracy” means here’s a nasic quote from wiki:
Meritocracy (merit, from Latin mereō, and -cracy, from Ancient Greek κράτος kratos "strength, power") is a political philosophy which holds that certain things, such as economic goods or power, should be vested in individuals on the basis of talent, effort, and achievement, rather than factors such as sexuality, race, gender, or wealth.
Basically those that have knowledge in a field should have a lareg degree of control over said field. As an example the best physicists should decide where the resources go not the worst physicists - in some given research.
AKA badgerjelly

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 517
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Meritocracy

Post by Karpel Tunnel » October 10th, 2018, 2:35 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 10:35 am
Just in case anyone sure what “meritocracy” means here’s a nasic quote from wiki:
Meritocracy (merit, from Latin mereō, and -cracy, from Ancient Greek κράτος kratos "strength, power") is a political philosophy which holds that certain things, such as economic goods or power, should be vested in individuals on the basis of talent, effort, and achievement, rather than factors such as sexuality, race, gender, or wealth.
Basically those that have knowledge in a field should have a lareg degree of control over said field. As an example the best physicists should decide where the resources go not the worst physicists - in some given research.
Though that's not quite what that definition says. 'Effort' is in there also. And talent opens doors to those not necessarily having the most knowledge also. In fact so does Achievement.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7326
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Meritocracy

Post by Greta » October 10th, 2018, 3:30 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 9:50 pm
Greta -

What are talking about? I am asking for positives and negatives. Are you saying meritocracy is “repressive” and if so how?
No, I'm obviously not saying a meritocracy is repressing.

You had said that HaN's post presented a far leftist view, which is incorrect, so I was providing correction. That's all.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Meritocracy

Post by ThomasHobbes » October 11th, 2018, 4:07 am

Burning ghost wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 3:30 am
TH -

You’ve lost me? A meritocracy means to judge by ability/competence. Are you asking how a fair “judgment” is made over what is deemed “competent”?

An artist, plumber or runner is given merit based on their ability/competence. We have tests and school to improve and nurture people’s abilities/competence.

That measuring is a problem is certainly a flaw embedded within the practical application of a meritocracy. I don’t see how it can be seen as a negative though because the premise is simply to reward people, to allow them more influence, in some given area if (and only if) they excel in it.
Who has sufficient merit to judge what is and what is not sufficient? And who judges the judge?

Burning ghost
Posts: 2797
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Meritocracy

Post by Burning ghost » October 11th, 2018, 5:10 am

TH -

If we’re going to move this discussion forward then I gues it’s dat for me to ignore the practical application.

The way we can, and do, judge is via some method of competition and/or test. The issue is then anout trying to judge what is better/best both short term and long term.

If we look at sports can we all agree upon who the best player is? Who teh best competitor is? And within any given sport who has the greatest ability? In individual sports this would be relatively easy to judge and competitions do a good enough job, yet in team sports to talk of an individuals aiblity is much more complex.

Nevertheless we all make a judgement to some degree or another be it diretcly or indirectly. A plumber is not picked out at random, we assess the priceand where possible the views of previous customers as well as proof of basic training (which we assume to be training that is put in place to assess competence to a minimal degree at worst.)

I should be VERY clear about what I mean by “REWARD”. I mean rewarded with a position NOT wealth. A meritiocracy is, after all, about ability, talent and effort not happenstance of circumstances. Teh obvious flaw within this no one seems to have brought up which I find a little surprising. That is how we distinguish between “ability”, “talent” and “effort”, and which of these attributes are more important to a workable meritocracy and which parts we should be wary of.

My quick thought here we be the mistake of “rewarding” effort above talent and/or abiilty. It seems in a meritocracy “effort” is an important factor but not the most important factor.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Meritocracy

Post by ThomasHobbes » October 11th, 2018, 6:05 am

BG -

I'm sure the guilds of Alchemy, Aromatherapy, Astrology, Faith healing and other such august bodies are perfectly capable of assessing the merit of their practitioners.

You still have not addresses the question about which is more worthy of merit; plumbers or carpenters.
Sports might be easy to assess for merit, but why do you think ANY sport has any merit? And is running more meritorious than, say, skying?
How do these compare to carpenters?

Is there not also here a problem with meriting specialists rather than generalists?

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Meritocracy

Post by ThomasHobbes » October 11th, 2018, 6:07 am

If you are not interested in offering wealth for merit, how you people live?

Burning ghost
Posts: 2797
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Meritocracy

Post by Burning ghost » October 11th, 2018, 10:49 am

TH -

Meritocracies are not based on how wealthy people are.
You still have not addresses the question about which is more worthy of merit; plumbers or carpenters.
I have. If I have problems with my plumbing the plumber has more merit. If I want someone to make a wooden table for me a carpenter has more merit. This is the context which “merit” is used when we talk of a meritocracy.
Is there not also here a problem with meriting specialists rather than generalists?
You’d have to be more specific? I imagine if you have issues with your bones you’d go see a osteopath and if you had issues with your nervous system you’d go and see a neurologist - I don’t see a problem here other than a misapplication of the way the term “merit” is being used (and I believe I did just clarify this so maybe I’m missing something?)
If you are not interested in offering wealth for merit, how you people live?
I don’t believe I said that at all? I am pretty sure I said that a meritocracy is not determined by wealth (meaning equality of opportunity regardless of economic standing - that people should not buy their way into positions.) Apologies if I suggested otherwise.

To answer, yes I would pay someone for doing work I couldn’t do (ie. Plumber or carpenter.) How much I pay them would depend on the demand of the job and the “going rate” which would be dictated by basic “supply and demand”. The rarer and more specialised a job the more I would expect to pay for it - I imagine it would cost more to have my roof thatched than tiled, one skill being more common today than the other.
AKA badgerjelly

Post Reply