This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- jekyll + hyde
- Help Thermodynamics A level chem
- English speaking + listening exam topic ideas
- Epq tips
- What team do you support and why?
- Higher English
- Politics at Glasgow vs Strathclyde
- Every Londoner knows that Highgate is in London
- identity crisis???
- Iraqis?
- Gen Z are the new millennials
- Moving from year 10 in england to s5 in scotland
- International student or home student
- Why Choose Edinburgh for Your Studies?
- Is it weird or wrong for a Year 9 to be friends with Year 7s?
- visa/work permit
- A level chemistry - energetics enthalpy diagrams
- Student Loan Finance eligibility
- If A Time Traveller Died In The Past, What Would His Date Of Death Be?
- A-level Chemistry
Born rich vs Born talented
Ok - so I have already started a thread on this - but no answers were forthcoming... Id be interested to test the waters again...
Everyone (almost - and some more than others) has the same pavlovian reaction to the notion of people being given benefits and getting a job (for instance) because of their birth. It is seen that they do not "deserve" it... that it is morally questionable that people should, by accident of birth, have things others do not.
However - if we are to base benefits on merit, which has to include some innate ability - then surely this too is an accident of birth?
I know there is a consequentialist argument for having a meritocracy - better doctors, leaders, etc etc...
However the separate idea of a teleological reasoning is hard to grasp if we are concurrently to reject nepotism and benefits by birth.
How do others reconcile the apparent contradiction?
Everyone (almost - and some more than others) has the same pavlovian reaction to the notion of people being given benefits and getting a job (for instance) because of their birth. It is seen that they do not "deserve" it... that it is morally questionable that people should, by accident of birth, have things others do not.
However - if we are to base benefits on merit, which has to include some innate ability - then surely this too is an accident of birth?
I know there is a consequentialist argument for having a meritocracy - better doctors, leaders, etc etc...
However the separate idea of a teleological reasoning is hard to grasp if we are concurrently to reject nepotism and benefits by birth.
How do others reconcile the apparent contradiction?
No matter how much money you have, everyone will have strengths and weaknesses. Some people believe we all have a 'true calling' or innate talent which we should nurture and develop, others say that you must learn skills and talents. I personally feel that different people will have varying abilities in learning and developing these skills- but it may also be true that you can learn to learn skills which may seem circular at first but could hold weight if we consider skills as being for example the exercise of the intellect and imagination.
Anyway, what I think is vital is that everyone should have the oppurtunity to discover which skills come easiest to them, and be granted the right to develop them. It seems far more beneficial to both the individual and to society that we encourage all people to reach for their fullest potential rather than selecting people based on their heritage/ nobility/ whatever. The inevitable outcome in such a society as ours however is thar the rich while not being granted special considerations when it comes to job seeking etc, will often have had stronger encouragement to develop their talents through means of better education. As long as a hierarchy of education exists, this seems pretty inevitable- the poorer prodigies will be exceptions to the rule that the richer you are, the more developed and useful talents you will end up with later in life. I still feel this is preferable to selection of benefits based on wealth for such a system would more often result in lesser abled people performing tasks which a pooer but better skilled worker could have performed.
Anyway, what I think is vital is that everyone should have the oppurtunity to discover which skills come easiest to them, and be granted the right to develop them. It seems far more beneficial to both the individual and to society that we encourage all people to reach for their fullest potential rather than selecting people based on their heritage/ nobility/ whatever. The inevitable outcome in such a society as ours however is thar the rich while not being granted special considerations when it comes to job seeking etc, will often have had stronger encouragement to develop their talents through means of better education. As long as a hierarchy of education exists, this seems pretty inevitable- the poorer prodigies will be exceptions to the rule that the richer you are, the more developed and useful talents you will end up with later in life. I still feel this is preferable to selection of benefits based on wealth for such a system would more often result in lesser abled people performing tasks which a pooer but better skilled worker could have performed.
This may be completely random, but have you read a book called "The Sirens of Titan" by (If I remember right) Kurt Vonnegut? In it, a religion is established in which people wear various kinds of handicaps to make them more equal. If people can walk well, they wear something to make walking more difficult so that they're equal to all the people who can't walk properly, etc. I don't really know if I hav a point here ... I'm probably just babbling and I'll go away now. 
born rich then you don't need to earn money so it doesn't matter if you're stupid plus ignorance is bliss anyway. Being clever is a strain 
If you're born talented then you have to earn money out of your talent and that's too shaky a ground
Sorry to be cynical here and focused on money but I'm skint at the moment so blah.
If you're born talented then you have to earn money out of your talent and that's too shaky a ground
Sorry to be cynical here and focused on money but I'm skint at the moment so blah.
I think it's impossible to seperate the variables of intelligence and wealth in terms of the degree to which they determine success, because the strength of the correlation between ability(a multi-faceted thing) and wealth is tough to assess. There will be at least some correlation between the abilities of parents who got wealthy recently and their offspring, in the case of 'new' money. However, there are different forms of ability, and a sample of rich people, are, obviously, going to be people who are more shrewd in, and more interested in, financial matters-but this may not bear total relation to more 'academic' ability. Also In the case of 'old' money thats been there for generations, there may well be very stupid wealthy people, as the intelligence may have been bred out by then, or as education becomes less valuable at such levels of privelige.
People can look at wealth and talent differently because wealth is a tangible thing that can be separated easily from the individual, unlike talent. The wealthy man can suffer financial hardship and be brought down to the normal level, but the talented man's personal advantage will always remain.
Wealth is easier to attain than natural ability. It's much easier to hate someone for something you would like to have and could possible get, than for something that is not so easily taken and redistributed amongst the masses.
Wealth is easier to attain than natural ability. It's much easier to hate someone for something you would like to have and could possible get, than for something that is not so easily taken and redistributed amongst the masses.
psychic_satori
It's much easier to hate someone for something you would like to have and could possible get, than for something that is not so easily taken and redistributed amongst the masses.
It's easier to envy wealth than talent? Or did I not get it?
naivesincerity
It's easier to envy wealth than talent? Or did I not get it?
Yeah. I just like to make my explanations as convoluted as possible
Yes people are born with certain advantages and disadvantages, including wealth etc.
The real fallacy here is people saying that Government should regulate talent/inherited wealth. All of these items in question are individual property - something the government should have (next to) no say in...
The real fallacy here is people saying that Government should regulate talent/inherited wealth. All of these items in question are individual property - something the government should have (next to) no say in...
I totally disagree. I think we should have a merit-based system but not a meritocracy.
Adam Smith showed us that it is much better for everyone to specialise in things that they are best suited for: even if they are not amongst the best people at doing it. Therefore we need a system which allows everyone to develop their strongest talents, but not to reward one person over another, since everyone does their bit. If anything, effort should be rewarded, rather than inherited wealth or talents.
Adam Smith showed us that it is much better for everyone to specialise in things that they are best suited for: even if they are not amongst the best people at doing it. Therefore we need a system which allows everyone to develop their strongest talents, but not to reward one person over another, since everyone does their bit. If anything, effort should be rewarded, rather than inherited wealth or talents.
Jangliss
I totally disagree. I think we should have a merit-based system but not a meritocracy.
Adam Smith showed us that it is much better for everyone to specialise in things that they are best suited for: even if they are not amongst the best people at doing it. Therefore we need a system which allows everyone to develop their strongest talents, but not to reward one person over another, since everyone does their bit. If anything, effort should be rewarded, rather than inherited wealth or talents.
Adam Smith showed us that it is much better for everyone to specialise in things that they are best suited for: even if they are not amongst the best people at doing it. Therefore we need a system which allows everyone to develop their strongest talents, but not to reward one person over another, since everyone does their bit. If anything, effort should be rewarded, rather than inherited wealth or talents.
That's me screwed then. I didn't inherit any money, am utterly without talent, and make no effort whatsoever.
Related discussions
- jekyll + hyde
- Help Thermodynamics A level chem
- English speaking + listening exam topic ideas
- Epq tips
- What team do you support and why?
- Higher English
- Politics at Glasgow vs Strathclyde
- Every Londoner knows that Highgate is in London
- identity crisis???
- Iraqis?
- Gen Z are the new millennials
- Moving from year 10 in england to s5 in scotland
- International student or home student
- Why Choose Edinburgh for Your Studies?
- Is it weird or wrong for a Year 9 to be friends with Year 7s?
- visa/work permit
- A level chemistry - energetics enthalpy diagrams
- Student Loan Finance eligibility
- If A Time Traveller Died In The Past, What Would His Date Of Death Be?
- A-level Chemistry
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
Mums furious after photo firm offers to delete kids in wheelchairs from school pics
