2024-07-01
32 分钟Today we talk about the dark side of meritocracy, the effects it has on the way people see each other, the dialectic of pride and humility, education reform, and a rethinking of the way we see government officials. Hope you enjoy it. :) Sponsors: Nord VPN: https://www.NordVPN.com/philothis Better Help: https://www.BetterHelp.com/PHILTHIS Thank you so much for listening! Could never do this without your help. Website: https://www.philosophizethis.org/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/philosophizethis Social: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/philosophizethispodcast X: https://twitter.com/iamstephenwest Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/philosophizethisshow
Hello, everyone.
I'm Stephen west.
This is philosophize.
This thanks to the people that do all the things that support the show.
So last episode was all about the importance of participating in a democracy, taking responsibility, having the sometimes tough conversations with each other that eventually make up the norms of the societies we live in.
And if you wanted an example of one of these norms, a social ideal that Sandel thinks we'd benefit a lot from if we talked about it more, how about an ideal that drives the way we think about a lot of things in western culture?
That what we should be aiming for is a society based on the concept of a meritocracy, or a system where the rewards of a society are distributed based on who's the most talented, who works the hardest, and who's the most qualified for the job.
In a true meritocracy, you could say talented, hardworking, qualified people would be the ones that are the most socially rewarded.
Everybody knows this is a common way that people wish our societies could be set up.
And Michael Sandel, in his 2020 book called the Tyranny of Merit, is going to question whether that's actually a good way to be giving recognition in a society.
And before we get into his critique, one thing needs to be acknowledged here.
Right at the start, I think, well, I guess a question that needs to be asked here is, why would anybody want to do it in a different way?
Why would anybody want the incentives of their society set up in any way that doesn't primarily reward these people?
I mean, when I need a heart surgery, for example, I want the best possible surgeon you can find.
You know, I don't want some man or woman that they've seen every episode of Grey's Anatomy or Mash.
As Sandel says, when you're on a flight, you want the pilot that's the most qualified to be flying the plane.
I mean, seriously, what else are people really even making a case for here?
We don't want a society where people are incentivized to sit on the couch all day, complain, and then expect to get the same outcomes as everyone else.
Nobody wants a society like that.
We need people doing great things.