From a rights-based approach, meritocracy, in its ideal form, may appear to align with principles of fairness and equality by rewarding individuals based on their abilities and achievements. However, in practice, it often overlooks the significant social inequities that shape people's opportunities, making it an insufficient framework for ensuring the common good. A truly just society must recognize that individuals are not born with equal access to resources, education, or opportunities, and thus, meritocracy in its traditional sense tends to perpetuate and even deepen these disparities. Social inequalities such as those based on race, class, gender, and disability place certain groups at a disadvantage from the outset, limiting their ability to succeed within a meritocratic system. Those who are born into poverty or face discrimination often lack the same access to quality education, healthcare, or social networks as those from privileged backgrounds. As a result, meritocracy fails to provide a level playing field, instead reinforcing the idea that success is solely a reflection of individual effort and ability, while ignoring the structural barriers that prevent equal access to opportunities. A rights-based approach calls for a more comprehensive understanding of justice, one that ensures all individuals have equal access to the conditions necessary for success, such as education, healthcare, and economic stability. Rather than focusing exclusively on individual merit, it advocates for systemic changes that address these inequalities and ensure that all people, regardless of their background, have the support and resources they need to thrive. To find the common good, society must move beyond the limitations of meritocracy and focus on creating an equitable system where rights, opportunities, and social protections are accessible to all. This approach values the dignity and rights of every individual, regardless of their starting point in life, and seeks to dismantle the social and economic inequalities that prevent many from achieving their full potential. Ultimately, a rights-based framework provides a more inclusive and just path toward the common good, one that ensures everyone can participate and benefit from society's resources and opportunities.
Reinjecting moral into our economic orthodoxies is so quietly revolutionary. Prof Sandel's books honestly changed the way I view the way our society is organised.
Sandel's arguments here are indeed food for thought... Another strong critique of meritocracy can be found in Yale Professor of Law Daniel Markovits' book 'The Meritocracy Trap'
We elect / select people to serve NOT lead. This notion of leadership has created the huberous we have today. Servitude helps instill the right attitude and helps focus measurement on outcomes
That's part of the issue itself tho. Those ppl who are leading/serving received much more financial supports from the elites therefore they only serve the elites.
About social media , without it, I will not be able to enjoy or afford the great presentation and all the super Harvard courses you taught. Everything has pros and cons!. I will not be able to see some of the other news ( fake or truth) from all over the world.
problem is algorithms being a blackbox (for the sake to avoid manipulation i guess), like in YT i found this just because of watching Sandel lecture before, but would get stuck in a different loops in Meta recommendations swaying me far away from educational content. And we can't conciously choose where to focus such recommendations (only blacklisting offensive topics, which is too blunt)
18:20 - "There are two problems with meritocracy: one, is that we fall short at it, we don't live up to the meritocratic principles that we profess, [...], ". Inequality vs. Mobility. "We don't have to worry so much about inequality." Social mobility rates are not that impressive in the United States. 21:00 - Two: "The ideal itself is flawed. It flaws for three reasons."
NEET is a good example of inequality in India. People who have money get training from private institutes and score in NEET. Academic alone can't help to get a pass in NEET.
Being 70, lifelong learning, understanding, observation, experience, re-examination 24/7 365. Over the past 50 years I saw the shifting of globalised geopolitical hegemony from west to east and back to the west up until the fall of the Berlin Wall and the rise of the Chinese power House at the return of Hon Kong that frightened the western bloc unprecedently, and since the onset of the 80's and the financialising of all governance in the developed world that grew exponentially through the 80's and evolved into a globalisation of bourgeois democracies through the 90's and into the new millennium has now become too big to fail, which was proven beyond doubt in 2008. There is no turning back for those who believe strongly in what they do, no education on what ever level one aspires to will change it without diabolical consequences. The Chinese and the Russians see the plight of the NATO alliance and its influences becoming more warlike and no education system or governance has the vision to recognise the importance of this rubicon of global hubris that will not be crossed without doing great harm to the human race. All of us are conscious cognosentient beings that inhabit a fragile existence, the earth does not recognise us as important and worthy of rescue, the earth will see us end and not blink or waver from its perpetuity. What to do about this dilemma? Don't ask a human. Love always.
Countries with parliaments are in fact oligarchies (few lead). In order to be a true democracy, the decisions of the Parliament should be submitted to the approval of the citizens. The democratic aspect is a side effect in societies where economies have a strong competitive aspect, where the interests of those who hold economic power in society are divergent. Thus, those with money, and implicitly with political power in society, are supervising each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. Because of this, countries with large mineral resources, like Russia and Venezuela (their share in GDP is large), do not have democratic aspects, because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries, the main resource exploited may even be the state budget, as they have converging interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. This is what is observed in Romania, Bulgaria, when, no matter which party comes to power, the result is the same. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if most of his voters consider that their interests are not right represented
Human nature is greed and selfish and very diverse self interest. Have a voting system does not solve the fundamental Issues if it is merely a format. I would not even confuse voting system is equal to true democracy. You are assuming everyone vote for true common good and have same level of morale standard.
I and 5 of my close friends were raised on working class, low income council housing estates, myself and my best friend came from single parents and we all left school with average qualifications. Yet all of us through meritocracy and hard work have all done well for ourselves and have very comfortable and financially secure lives and families, how did we mange that.
What do you take this anecdotal evidence to support? Sandel didn't argue that social advancement is impossible in a meritocracy. Quite the contrary! The problem is that those who do make it often fail to recognize the role of luck in their advancement and they tend to assume that those who don't make it only have themselves to blame. These tendencies are generated by the meritocracy. That's the argument.
The prosperous among us, for WHATEVER reason - luck, talent, work, innovativeness, wealth, class, family, inheritance, holiness, strength, power, persuasiveness, contacts, success, charisma, good-deals, mysticism, religion, race, and so forth have ALWAYS claimed to deserve their prosperity and to demean those who don't share their status. Meritocracy is subject to the same forces. It was ever thus. But at least merit can be measured - albeit subject to many different evolving factors, needs, opportunities, zeitgeists etc. Not to mention 'market forces' which in the broadest sense emerge in any system including anarchy! I don't think this guy has any plan to improve meritocracy. I realise it was coined as a derogatory term. But we have found new ways to value merit as a basis for distributing roles within society. As others have said, the process of meritocracy is about getting the most effective people in the most appropriate and important careers. It is not (necessarily) about who gets the goodies of life! If it's about 'winning it's not meritocracy. Anything with cracy on the end of it implies a duty to manage the society lived among. Democracy is failing because the demos at the beginning of the word isn't pulling its weight. They leave it to others and then complain they're not getting what they expect! They need to get politically active and to do some hard thinking about what is going on. They miss the days of working class prosperity but have failed to maintain the mass political parties and unions and social capital that underlay that prosperity. They think that a strongman will fix things. I honestly don't know why this guy gets so much attention. There is so much to be discussed about a far better meritocracy, but all he does is itemise shortcomings. Enough for now.
IT'S TERRIFYING HOW SO MANY OF THE PEOPLE FEEL THE EDUCATED SHOULD NOT HAVE MORE OF A VOTE THAN OTHERS. IT SAYS A LOT TO WHAT A MESS THE COUNTRY IS IN-HOW COME WE HAVE HAD SUCH "LEADERS" THE PAST 2 PRESICENCTS.
Harvard famous philosopher Micheal Sandel in Geneva, Switzerland ( The first neutral country of the World and the safest nation for worldwide leaders meeting tending to Peace Talks) with Democracy Conference
Soile and it's depth has what's ? Must wee know" Water and Fartilizers stocks" whenever needs Trees getings it's Needs asper Required Depth frome Soiles grounding Resource of Stocks with water" livings in depth " rest upper level of Grass level bushes of plants are seasonal grow and dry,
MERITOCRACY SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE EXPLANATIONS ABOUT STALLED SOCIAL MOBILITY , BRAINCELL LOSS & BRAIN DAMAGE BEING ATTRIBUTED TO HAVING TO WATCH TOO MANY COMMERCIALS .
The ladder metaphor he used was very apt, actually. The ladder is still there, but the rungs have grown further and further apart. And look where we are today. Hubris brought us here.
It's more about redistribution of dignity, which can be argued to translate into a redistribution of wealth. It's been a while since I read the book, but iirc the point is not about equity.
Stupid when implemented. Rank 1 tennis player should get paid as much as Connor Farren (rank 1000)... hey they do they same job, they work just as hard. Federer is only luckier
I've watched Sandal's Justice series, as well as a couple of his global speaking engagements. He makes some good points on the rise of populism, but greatly misses the mark on both the causes and with his proposed solutions. He's out of touch with grievances coming from populists, and labeling them as racists only reflects the academic shortsightedness.
He does the opposite… he is sympathizing with those who have not been able to find a place in our credentialed, educated, meritocratic society. And proposing solutions
Nobody is trashing meritocracy. The argument is simply that competence (i.e. the ability to do something) is more equitable in some situations than meritocracy (i.e. the best at doing something). I promise you, a purely meritocratic world would be intractable for you and most people. The argument against meritocracy is that good is good enough for most things.
@@DanA-pm2hl Good is not "good enough" when one undergoes a complex surgical procedure or when determining who should fly a plane, etc. Good doesn't "cut it".
The alternative is a society where the illusion that those “blessed” with the ability to be successful in our society mortally deserve their success is abandoned… replaced with a more balanced understanding that much of their success is due to luck (and not of their own doing) hence the fruit of this success could be used for the common good as democratically determined by the society.
From a rights-based approach, meritocracy, in its ideal form, may appear to align with principles of fairness and equality by rewarding individuals based on their abilities and achievements. However, in practice, it often overlooks the significant social inequities that shape people's opportunities, making it an insufficient framework for ensuring the common good. A truly just society must recognize that individuals are not born with equal access to resources, education, or opportunities, and thus, meritocracy in its traditional sense tends to perpetuate and even deepen these disparities.
Social inequalities such as those based on race, class, gender, and disability place certain groups at a disadvantage from the outset, limiting their ability to succeed within a meritocratic system. Those who are born into poverty or face discrimination often lack the same access to quality education, healthcare, or social networks as those from privileged backgrounds. As a result, meritocracy fails to provide a level playing field, instead reinforcing the idea that success is solely a reflection of individual effort and ability, while ignoring the structural barriers that prevent equal access to opportunities.
A rights-based approach calls for a more comprehensive understanding of justice, one that ensures all individuals have equal access to the conditions necessary for success, such as education, healthcare, and economic stability. Rather than focusing exclusively on individual merit, it advocates for systemic changes that address these inequalities and ensure that all people, regardless of their background, have the support and resources they need to thrive.
To find the common good, society must move beyond the limitations of meritocracy and focus on creating an equitable system where rights, opportunities, and social protections are accessible to all. This approach values the dignity and rights of every individual, regardless of their starting point in life, and seeks to dismantle the social and economic inequalities that prevent many from achieving their full potential. Ultimately, a rights-based framework provides a more inclusive and just path toward the common good, one that ensures everyone can participate and benefit from society's resources and opportunities.
Reinjecting moral into our economic orthodoxies is so quietly revolutionary. Prof Sandel's books honestly changed the way I view the way our society is organised.
14:30 to skip the introduction
Sandel's arguments here are indeed food for thought... Another strong critique of meritocracy can be found in Yale Professor of Law Daniel Markovits' book 'The Meritocracy Trap'
We elect / select people to serve NOT lead.
This notion of leadership has created the huberous we have today.
Servitude helps instill the right attitude and helps focus measurement on outcomes
That's part of the issue itself tho. Those ppl who are leading/serving received much more financial supports from the elites therefore they only serve the elites.
About social media , without it, I will not be able to enjoy or afford the great presentation and all the super Harvard courses you taught. Everything has pros and cons!. I will not be able to see some of the other news ( fake or truth) from all over the world.
problem is algorithms being a blackbox (for the sake to avoid manipulation i guess), like in YT i found this just because of watching Sandel lecture before, but would get stuck in a different loops in Meta recommendations swaying me far away from educational content. And we can't conciously choose where to focus such recommendations (only blacklisting offensive topics, which is too blunt)
Thank you for an very enlightening speech!
Thanks for sharing!
18:20 - "There are two problems with meritocracy: one, is that we fall short at it, we don't live up to the meritocratic principles that we profess, [...], ". Inequality vs. Mobility. "We don't have to worry so much about inequality." Social mobility rates are not that impressive in the United States.
21:00 - Two: "The ideal itself is flawed. It flaws for three reasons."
NEET is a good example of inequality in India. People who have money get training from private institutes and score in NEET. Academic alone can't help to get a pass in NEET.
Being 70, lifelong learning, understanding, observation, experience, re-examination 24/7 365.
Over the past 50 years I saw the shifting of globalised geopolitical hegemony from west to east and back to the west up until the fall of the Berlin Wall and the rise of the Chinese power House at the return of Hon Kong that frightened the western bloc unprecedently, and since the onset of the 80's and the financialising of all governance in the developed world that grew exponentially through the 80's and evolved into a globalisation of bourgeois democracies through the 90's and into the new millennium has now become too big to fail, which was proven beyond doubt in 2008.
There is no turning back for those who believe strongly in what they do, no education on what ever level one aspires to will change it without diabolical consequences.
The Chinese and the Russians see the plight of the NATO alliance and its influences becoming more warlike and no education system or governance has the vision to recognise the importance of this rubicon of global hubris that will not be crossed without doing great harm to the human race.
All of us are conscious cognosentient beings that inhabit a fragile existence, the earth does not recognise us as important and worthy of rescue, the earth will see us end and not blink or waver from its perpetuity.
What to do about this dilemma? Don't ask a human.
Love always.
There are certain types of trust funds that uphold this moral principle.
Countries with parliaments are in fact oligarchies (few lead). In order to be a true democracy, the decisions of the Parliament should be submitted to the approval of the citizens. The democratic aspect is a side effect in societies where economies have a strong competitive aspect, where the interests of those who hold economic power in society are divergent. Thus, those with money, and implicitly with political power in society, are supervising each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. Because of this, countries with large mineral resources, like Russia and Venezuela (their share in GDP is large), do not have democratic aspects, because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries, the main resource exploited may even be the state budget, as they have converging interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. This is what is observed in Romania, Bulgaria, when, no matter which party comes to power, the result is the same. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if most of his voters consider that their interests are not right represented
Human nature is greed and selfish and very diverse self interest. Have a voting system does not solve the fundamental
Issues if it is merely a format. I would not even confuse voting system is equal to true democracy. You are assuming everyone vote for true common good and have same level of morale standard.
Kindly arrange for the entire wipe out
Very useful speech 👏🏽👍🏽👍🏽
Nice talk, thanks!
I and 5 of my close friends were raised on working class, low income council housing estates, myself and my best friend came from single parents and we all left school with average qualifications. Yet all of us through meritocracy and hard work have all done well for ourselves and have very comfortable and financially secure lives and families, how did we mange that.
What do you take this anecdotal evidence to support? Sandel didn't argue that social advancement is impossible in a meritocracy. Quite the contrary! The problem is that those who do make it often fail to recognize the role of luck in their advancement and they tend to assume that those who don't make it only have themselves to blame. These tendencies are generated by the meritocracy. That's the argument.
The hubris in your comment just serves to support Sandel’s thesis.
Is the argument the tyranny of merit better than merit itself?
The prosperous among us, for WHATEVER reason - luck, talent, work, innovativeness, wealth, class, family, inheritance, holiness, strength, power, persuasiveness, contacts, success, charisma, good-deals, mysticism, religion, race, and so forth have ALWAYS claimed to deserve their prosperity and to demean those who don't share their status. Meritocracy is subject to the same forces. It was ever thus. But at least merit can be measured - albeit subject to many different evolving factors, needs, opportunities, zeitgeists etc. Not to mention 'market forces' which in the broadest sense emerge in any system including anarchy! I don't think this guy has any plan to improve meritocracy. I realise it was coined as a derogatory term. But we have found new ways to value merit as a basis for distributing roles within society. As others have said, the process of meritocracy is about getting the most effective people in the most appropriate and important careers. It is not (necessarily) about who gets the goodies of life! If it's about 'winning it's not meritocracy. Anything with cracy on the end of it implies a duty to manage the society lived among. Democracy is failing because the demos at the beginning of the word isn't pulling its weight. They leave it to others and then complain they're not getting what they expect! They need to get politically active and to do some hard thinking about what is going on. They miss the days of working class prosperity but have failed to maintain the mass political parties and unions and social capital that underlay that prosperity. They think that a strongman will fix things. I honestly don't know why this guy gets so much attention. There is so much to be discussed about a far better meritocracy, but all he does is itemise shortcomings. Enough for now.
The companies which pay Federer for endorsing their products think that he is worth the money they pay him.
That's besides the point of the talk. And the book.
🙏🏼💫💕
这种批判似乎也受用于今天中国某些流量明星，比如走后门考编却觉得自己应得的yyqx
Lower tax on employment yes that is importatn!
IT'S TERRIFYING HOW SO MANY OF THE PEOPLE FEEL THE EDUCATED SHOULD NOT HAVE MORE OF A VOTE THAN OTHERS.
IT SAYS A LOT TO WHAT A MESS THE COUNTRY IS IN-HOW COME WE HAVE HAD SUCH "LEADERS"
THE PAST 2 PRESICENCTS.
Harvard famous philosopher Micheal Sandel in Geneva, Switzerland ( The first neutral country of the World and the safest nation for worldwide leaders meeting tending to Peace Talks) with Democracy Conference
Soile and it's depth has what's ? Must wee know" Water and Fartilizers stocks" whenever needs Trees getings it's Needs asper Required Depth frome Soiles grounding Resource of Stocks with water" livings in depth " rest upper level of Grass level bushes of plants are seasonal grow and dry,
Are you a bot or did you use a speech to text tool?
in India there are lot of people with merit😂😂😂😂 and all time they are shouting merit 24x7😂😂😂
Buona fortuna
MERITOCRACY SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE EXPLANATIONS ABOUT STALLED SOCIAL MOBILITY , BRAINCELL LOSS & BRAIN DAMAGE BEING ATTRIBUTED TO HAVING TO WATCH TOO MANY COMMERCIALS .
Yes, the meritocracy creates a hubris but it's still a meritocracy.
Is this really all you got? Now I know what it’s like when my wife talks to me
Meritocratic hubris stiffles tolerance and solidarity, both of which are needed in a healthy society.
The ladder metaphor he used was very apt, actually. The ladder is still there, but the rungs have grown further and further apart. And look where we are today. Hubris brought us here.
Jackson Edward Martin Betty Martin Deborah
Hi hello ma'am today
Why try to put a square peg in a round hole? Individuals are all different and will never fit into an “equity” framework.
I think he already affirms that in his argument…
It's more about redistribution of dignity, which can be argued to translate into a redistribution of wealth. It's been a while since I read the book, but iirc the point is not about equity.
Stupid when implemented.
Rank 1 tennis player should get paid as much as Connor Farren (rank 1000)... hey they do they same job, they work just as hard. Federer is only luckier
Yea, you're too hung up on the opening argument. That's not what he's talking about. It's about the dignity of work.
The common good: communism
Wow... what an ignorant, unsophisticated, knee-jerk comment. Try actually listening to the talk, then consider commenting.
The teacher salary , surely is wanting
Fortis Fortuna Adiuvat
Quid ita?
我朋友圈的公子哥就是如此傲慢，整天冷嘲热讽，别人没有你这样的条件，你却觉得是他们自己不够努力，人不能忘本啊
I've watched Sandal's Justice series, as well as a couple of his global speaking engagements. He makes some good points on the rise of populism, but greatly misses the mark on both the causes and with his proposed solutions. He's out of touch with grievances coming from populists, and labeling them as racists only reflects the academic shortsightedness.
He does the opposite… he is sympathizing with those who have not been able to find a place in our credentialed, educated, meritocratic society. And proposing solutions
Just where in those lectures on Justice did Michael Sandel label anyone as racist? Did you even listen?
Yea, I have read his last three books and where did he mention racism?
A crowd of "intellectual elite" trashing meritocracy? What is the alternative to meritocracy, again?
Dictatorship. That's what these people want
Nobody is trashing meritocracy. The argument is simply that competence (i.e. the ability to do something) is more equitable in some situations than meritocracy (i.e. the best at doing something). I promise you, a purely meritocratic world would be intractable for you and most people. The argument against meritocracy is that good is good enough for most things.
@@DanA-pm2hl Good is not "good enough" when one undergoes a complex surgical procedure or when determining who should fly a plane, etc.
Good doesn't "cut it".
The alternative is a society where the illusion that those “blessed” with the ability to be successful in our society mortally deserve their success is abandoned… replaced with a more balanced understanding that much of their success is due to luck (and not of their own doing) hence the fruit of this success could be used for the common good as democratically determined by the society.
@@MB-dp1rj Sandel addresses that literally at the very start of his talk. Your ignorant, reactionary comment "doesn't 'cut it'".