Essays on societies - 2 - About starting points and races..
June 2nd 2007 04:04
So, on merit.
As explained in the last post, in any society it has to be decided how the merit of one's work will be rewarded in relation to the rest.
I mean, as in the way it is defended, merit is important to show people the value of work. I won't try to study how these values were created or developped (with religious backgrounds or what so ever), but the thing is that for any group of people, you have to decide how you will recompensate someone who does something good, or at least better than the others.
This recompensation is important because it makes people see that creating, producing, etc is a good thing, that it helps the hole society, and themselves. If there is no special reward for your late worked hours, what's the point of speeding up yourself to do something good? Since people won't work for the hole society if they don't think society is doing the same for them, you have to give them something back.
But a thing is important in this matter: if you want to be fair when rewarding the work of people, you should give them the same "starting points". I mean, where is the merit of wining a competition where the people do not start in the same level?
The merit in work cannot be really evaluated in cases where there are people "being helped". And what is quite curious, most of the people who defend merit, started their races with some kilometers of advantage in relation to the rest.
So, first conclusion of this post on merit: merit is a good thing, as long as people have the same bases to start with.
But there is another problem to be pointed here: we're not born the same, at least not with the same capacitites, or talents. I think it's clear that nature is not fair with everyone, so it becomes still more difficult to give people the same starting points, and leave merit do the rest.
In this case, you have to think again your use of "merit", otherwise we'll be just applying Darwin's laws to society, and i think we all agree that nature is not the example to follow (like the people who misinterpreted Niezsche the hole last century did, like Hitler, etc). So, as a condition to the value of merit, we should define that it is only applicable for people who are starting the race in the same line...
And so it is. Next time on equality, to get deeper on it's good points, bad points, and the conditions you have to fill to make it work.
Cheers. Uula
As explained in the last post, in any society it has to be decided how the merit of one's work will be rewarded in relation to the rest.
I mean, as in the way it is defended, merit is important to show people the value of work. I won't try to study how these values were created or developped (with religious backgrounds or what so ever), but the thing is that for any group of people, you have to decide how you will recompensate someone who does something good, or at least better than the others.
This recompensation is important because it makes people see that creating, producing, etc is a good thing, that it helps the hole society, and themselves. If there is no special reward for your late worked hours, what's the point of speeding up yourself to do something good? Since people won't work for the hole society if they don't think society is doing the same for them, you have to give them something back.
But a thing is important in this matter: if you want to be fair when rewarding the work of people, you should give them the same "starting points". I mean, where is the merit of wining a competition where the people do not start in the same level?
The merit in work cannot be really evaluated in cases where there are people "being helped". And what is quite curious, most of the people who defend merit, started their races with some kilometers of advantage in relation to the rest.
So, first conclusion of this post on merit: merit is a good thing, as long as people have the same bases to start with.
But there is another problem to be pointed here: we're not born the same, at least not with the same capacitites, or talents. I think it's clear that nature is not fair with everyone, so it becomes still more difficult to give people the same starting points, and leave merit do the rest.
In this case, you have to think again your use of "merit", otherwise we'll be just applying Darwin's laws to society, and i think we all agree that nature is not the example to follow (like the people who misinterpreted Niezsche the hole last century did, like Hitler, etc). So, as a condition to the value of merit, we should define that it is only applicable for people who are starting the race in the same line...
And so it is. Next time on equality, to get deeper on it's good points, bad points, and the conditions you have to fill to make it work.
Cheers. Uula
| 32 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
