Does Meritocracy Lead to Higher Equality or Inequality?

The concept of meritocracy suggests that individuals should be placed in positions based on their competence and ability to compete successfully. However, while meritocracy promotes equal opportunities based on merit, it has been debated whether it fosters higher equality or contributes to greater inequality.

The Inherent Inequality of Meritocracy

Mere competence and success are not sufficient to guarantee an equitable society. For instance, surgeons require rigorous training and proof of competence. It would be indefensible to entrust a life-saving operation to someone who had not proven their ability. Similarly, airline pilots must demonstrate their qualifications to ensure passenger safety. While these systems reward competence and punish incompetence, they also create what some interpret as inequality.

The Ideal Society: Meritocracy vs. Equality

Much of the debate around meritocracy stems from its perceived impact on societal equality. Proponents argue that meritocracy is the best system for achieving a just and efficient society. They suggest that setting rules for everyone ensures that the brightest, most talented, and luckiest individuals rise to the top. This system promotes societal progress and innovation.

The Two-Tier System Argument

However, critics argue that a two-tier system can undermine the meritocratic ideal. In this system, those in tier one have access to ample resources and support, while tier two lacks such advantages and faces challenging conditions. If an individual succeeds solely because of the advantages they had, it might not be truly meritocratic.

The Vicious Cycle of Artificial Solutions

Some political and social advocates propose artificial solutions to address inequality, such as providing second chances or special incentives for those in disadvantaged positions. However, these solutions often lead to a vicious cycle. When individuals from tier two are artificially selected, they may still fail, tarnishing the credibility of the meritocratic system.

Education as a Case Study

One example where the issue is particularly evident is education. Education systems are designed to provide opportunities for all, but the reality is fraught with challenges. The English philosopher John Stuart Mill once said, 'the few end up accumulating more resources than the many.' To address this, some argue that even if laws cannot completely level the playing field, they can ensure that opportunities are available for those who are potential Davids. For instance, Andrew Carnegie established thousands of libraries, including in the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, in the latter half of the 19th century. This initiative coincided with a period of significant public library growth.

A Conclusion on the Meritocracy Dilemma

In conclusion, the debate over meritocracy revolves around the balance between merit and equality. While meritocracy promotes talent and competence, it may also exacerbate inequalities if not addressed properly. The challenge lies in designing a system that ensures fairness and opportunity while recognizing the inherent inequalities in human nature and society.