5 Success Ethics

Sandel suggest we consider two societies that are both extremely unequal in income and wealth.  Might say both are unjust. 

MERITOCRACY VERSUS ARISTOCRACY

The extreme inequality of an aristocracy comes from the luck of birth, passed down from one generation to the next. Poor stay poor. Nobility stays rich.

The extreme inequality in an meritocracy comes from exercising talent and ingenuity. So, is it somehow more just?  Some argue it is more just. Yet, the luck of being born with a certain talent, and capability to put forth effort, well, luck is still involved.  Whether one is born into a class of upper nobility or a class of genetically gifted people with a certain talent, well, it is still just luck. And, the latter also likely had affluent parents with good schools, dedicated teachers, and other advantages of birth into that family.

So, is there any real difference?  And, how deal with the tendency to extreme inequality in both cases?  The point to opportunity of the meritocracy always comes into view, as in the opportunity for upward mobility is better assured in a meritocracy.  Yet, even the meritocratic system has a lot of luck, fortuitous circumstance in play.

Sandel offers a hypothetical.  Let’s say you knew before birth that you would be born into the highest income or the lowest income position. Which society would you prefer now?   Well, if born into wealth, you might prefer the aristocracy as it assures you can pass on the wealth to your future generations forever.  If born poor, you might prefer the meritocracy because of the possibility of upward mobility.

So, the intriguing question is, what would be a just society? Sandel points out that is not just about the money. It is also about what the money signifies. In an aristocracy, it simply signifies the luck of birth, and says nothing about one’s talent and effort.  The poor might live poorly, but at least it would not be deemed your fault for choosing that life: You had no choice. In a meritocracy, on the other hand, while it says you have little talent and do not work hard enough and are dumb  if you are born poor. But, you could ignore that claim, and perhaps ascend to the top, and feel really good about yourself, even self deserving once arrived.  Being born wealthy into  a meritocracy, however, you are automatically deemed more talented, more hard working and smarter than everyone else leading to the hubris at the top. That could bring another set of issues, that might suggest meritocracy has a dark side.

MERITOCRACY’S DARK SIDE

Sandel points to the 1958 book by Michael Young a British sociologist, who is attributed with inventing the term meritocracy, and especially pointing to the dark side.  It was a dystopia, not an ideal. The old class system, like in an aristocracy, tempered the arrogance of self-love, the self-interest of the wealthy as anyone in that class knew full well, if honest, that many people in the lower classes where just as talented and hard working, and perhaps much more so.  The hubris of self-interest was tempered. And, those at the bottom did not have to think of being at that lower rung as a personal failure.  Rather, it was the system, not something they could do much about… unless challenged politically, which was eventually done, and aristocracy was taken down. People on the lower rungs did not have to feel inferior, and, people on the upper rungs, if living in reality, could not realistically look down with full disdain. It was just the luck, the fortuitous circumstance in play.

So, Sandel points out that Young makes the point about the moral arbitrariness of a position in a hierarchy in a class system, and, while not justifying it, does make for a bit of calm related to not having to take full responsibility for one’s state in life.  Young goes on to point out that a meritocracy does not reduce inequality, and the tendency to extreme inequality, but it creates the false impression that people get what they deserve. Said frame makes the inequality even worse.

The people at the top feel justified in ignoring the problems down the ladder. The meritocratic hubris at the top, and the sense of felt failure at the bottom, makes for all manner of issues in political economy and social stability.  As DIT makes clear, it assures inefficiency in both economy and society.

Sandel also points out that Young anticipated the tendency to technocratic expertise at the top, which led said elites to not want to participate in the public discourse with the inferiors lacking such knowledge.  The meritocratic elites at the top would speak a different language. So, impressed with own importance, in DIT framing, such meritocrats would lose the capacity for empathy-with, on the way to sympathy-with and compassion-for people on the lower rungs of the ladder.  People of low caliber might be unnecessarily offended: Sandel points to the “deplorables” statement by then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Resentment then builds. Both economy and society suffer. 

Young claimed that meritocracy, for the first time in human history, results in the “inferior man has no ready buttress for his self-regard.” So, the hubris at the top and the resentment at the bottom would lead to political backlash, it was inevitable, as experienced in 2016 in the US, and in the Brexit vote in the UK.

MERITOCRACY RECONSIDERED

Income inequality beset both systems.  Some choose to defend the inequality in meritocracy on the notion of deserving. Affirmative action is criticized because it is not about merit. Meritocracy is winning the day. Problem is: The meritocracy has evolved into an aristocracy with different reasons for the hierarchy and the extreme inequality, as the meritocracy at the top keeps said positions and the bottom finds it ever more difficult climb the ladder. Meritocracy is in practice a myth.

Sandel suggests the notion of meritocracy is a hollow political project because it “reflects an impoverished conception of citizenship and freedom (p.   ).” As DIT makes clear, meritocracy on path 0G ignores the need to find common ground in the arena of civics, and citizenship, on path 0M. Freedom is not just about a meritocratic frame of do as you please, free to choose based on your talent and hard work, but the other must also beacknowledged for the role played in helping make it all possible. Merit on path 0G serving the individual good must be tempered by acknowledging the role of the common good on path 0M in making it possible. Path 0Z becomes the focus.

Sandel gets to said place without an analytical model as tightly framed as in DIT by looking at two objections:  1) one is about justice, and 2) the other is about attitudes toward success and failure.  Even if a meritocracy perfectly reflected talents and effort, it would still not be just, as a lot of it is just random luck. And, even if it could be fair, it would not be a good society, as DIT clarifies said society must operate on path 0Z, no 0G.  It would generate so much hubris and anxiety among the people at the top, with resentment and humiliation at the bottom, so as to not achieve homeostasis stability on path 0Z. It would be at odds with human flourishing. It would be corrosive of the common good, as path 0M would play no role, as social esteem is of no accord.

WOULD A PERFECT MERITOCRACY BE JUST?

Sandel gives us a hypothetical. Let’s just assume everyone could build on own talents and put in the effort to prosper from same. It would be a competition among everyone on a level playing field. Some would say, immediately, this would produce a just society. It is what the (mythical) American Dream is all about, right? It would be a perfectly mobile society, an ideal, an idea of freedom, and, we would freely say we deserve what we got.  Notice it is only about mobility not about the problem of extreme inequality.  Says nothing about the distance among the rungs.  It is not a solution for extreme inequality; it justifies it. Some try to justify it, on questionable grounds of competition assures it is appropriate inequality.

DO WE DESERVE OUR TALENTS?

Well, perhaps, although it is really the luck of the draw.  We are born with our talents, and our proclivity to work hard is likely in our genetics, too. One does not earn our genetics, so why is it just to presume we deserve what our talents and hard work produce, as though we earned it? It is also luck that the economy and society values the particular talent one is born with, well, that is just luck as well. One cannot claim credit, that one earned the payoff, for that luck. It is also not ones fault for being born with a talent few value, or, in the Market Forum, are willing to pay a very low price P or no price P at all. Success is not only our own doing; the community of shared other-interest is also at play.  Our successes are not only our own doing.  We cannot be completely self-made.

So, the economy cannot give us our due, alone. The talents are gifts. Mistake and conceit is in play, not justice.

DOES EFFORT MAKE US WORTHY?

Meritocrats claim yes. Effort does make a difference.  And, talent needs effort.  But, again, effort comes from luck, too. Some are just born with more determination. And, success does not come from hard work alone.  Some see effort at a moral claim on what we produce, but again, the capability to put in that effort is really a gift, not something we have earned. Overall, the meritocratic ideal is flawed because “it ignores the moral arbitrariness of talent and inflates the moral significance of effort (p.   ).” So, what alternative conceptions of justice are available?

TWO ALTERNATIVES TO MERITOCRACY

Sandel points to two alternatives, but both --- like aristocracy and meritocracy --- still lack sufficient attention to the common good. Certainly that is the case for free-market liberalism --- sometimes called neoliberalism which favors laissez-faire, the “free to choose” trope. Said frame uses SIT (Single Interest Theory) which focuses all attention on the incentive, along with talent and effort responding to that incentive on path 0G. Merit plays on that same path. The ethic represented in the shared with the other-interest in the common good --- the shared ethics --- is left out of view, if not outrightly rejected. In contrast, DIT points to the essential need to strike balance in the jointly operant incentive&ethic, merit&civic engagement: It is the way to a just system.

Free-Market Liberalism

Sandel points to Frederick Hayek as the brainchild of said thinking, as represented in “Hayek opposed government efforts to reduce economic inequality, argued against progressive taxation, and viewed the welfare state as antithetical to freedom (p. 125).”  Through the DIT lens, Hayek is especially associated with his claims about how Socialism (especially the extreme version in Communism) assured a Road to Serfdom, as in state serfdom in this image. Yet, through the DIT lens, Hayek has also been misrepresented especially by the Libertarian Economists like Milton Friedman, as  Hayek fully grasped the essential need for striking good balance in market&government.  Hayek fully understood an unfettered, laissez-faire market could well go awry. Using  DIT, said free-market, free-to-choose system  is better described as Scroogism, and can lead down another Road to Serfdom in the form of greed serfdom.

Again through the DIT lens, Hayek also mistakenly claimed that a bit of Socialism, like in a bit of Welfare State framing, inexorably led to state serfdom.  The cases in places like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are all empirical examples countering that claim. As DIT makes clear, what actually works, and avoids both greed serfdom and state serfdom is striking good balance in Scroogism&Socialism, each needing the other.  It is the Road to Prosperity on path 0Z.  It is also the path of good balance in merit&grace.

And, an aside, using DIT to guide the search for the best path: Operating on the balanced path pointed to by DIT also avoids the  Authoritarian take-over of a system by a demagogue who always comes along when greed serfdom or state serfdom fail.  DIT framing avoids authoritarian serfdom, too. 

So, where does Welfare State Liberalism fit in the scheme of things?

Welfare State Liberalism

Sandel points to John Rawls as giving the “fullest philosophical expression” to said form of liberalism, which still sees a prominent role for the person seeking own individual good.  So, in some ways the point of a welfare state is to give equal opportunity, Rawls who might see it as necessary, does not see equal opportunity as  sufficient to a “just society.”   Sandel describes the Rawls claim this way:   “… even a system of fair equality of opportunity, one that fully compensated for the effects of class differences, would not make for a just society. The reason: If people competed on a truly level playing field, the winners would be those endowed with the greatest talent. But differences of talent are as morally arbitrary as differences of class… (so) even a society that achieved true equality of opportunity would not necessarily be a just society. It would have also to contend with the inequalities that arise due to differences in people’s native abilities (128).”

So, how deal with the inherent inequality?  Rawls wants the winners --- in the Rawlsian just society --- who had the luck of having been endowed with more talent and/or effort, or the fortuitous luck of the market willing to pay more for something a person provides --- to share their winnings.   So, such things as taxation of winnings … and perhaps the winners reinvesting in the people and the community --- leads to Rawlsian justice. The point is: The distribution of talents --- and we might suppose other lucky, fortuitous things --- is a natural asset, and, can be taxed with the proceeds used to help the people not so fortunate. Market rewards are not just from talent and effort, but also fortuitous, not justifying moral desert… and Rawlsian justice requires the least among us also have a decent life. Point is, the people rewarded by the market cannot “…rightly complain if the tax laws require (one) to turn over a portion of (that) income to pay for schools or roads or help for the poor (p. 130).”

Sandel notes the claim depends “… on showing that we are indebted in various ways to the community that makes our success possible and therefore obligated to contribute to its common good (p. 130).” DIT supports the notion, in that every production process (use Figure 5 to represent a production process with isoquants) needs to  contribute product in the spirit of path 0G but also needs to contribute to the common good on path 0M. The latter could mean paying some tax t to bring the needed inputs into play. For example, an irrigator and producer of corn must also pay attention to  producing wildlife habitat during the growing season, perhaps paying some taxes to maintain a wildlife population. In fact, production for the individual good on path 0G is not appropriate as measured by the community of shared with the other interest without also serving the common good on path 0M. Attention is shifted to path 0Z.v

Similarly, in consumption (Figure 5 now being indifference curves), consuming for individual good on path 0G must pay attention to consuming in the domain of the common good on path 0M. One cannot legitimately purchase a snorkeling mask on path 0G without also paying some taxes to support the function of coral reefs on path 0M.

In both cases, the person is indebted to the common good. Said person needs to be willing to help support it, for the good of all in the community of shared interest.  Sandel notes “Barack Obama’s attempt to evoke the mutual dependence and obligation of citizens during his 2012 re-election campaign: ‘If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there …great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges … You’re not on your own, we’re in this together (p. 131).” 

Point is, through the DIT lens:  Talent and hard work of the other, and, the luck of having said other people around, needs to be acknowledged by everyone.  Through the DIT lens, one needs to see how path 0M helped and was integral to how one succeeded on path 0G, as in the individual needs the common, and the common needs the individual, as in jointly operant individual&common good. So, helping pay price P for the common good --- which, too, is often in the realm of non-money value O goods --- just makes economic and social sense, as in achieving economic&social efficiency on path 0Z.  Paying for some poetry helps make more and better pushpins.

Sandel claims the Obama attempt to explain the moral debt in the realm of the common good failed to do so.  Sandel claims it “reflects a weakness in the philosophy of welfare state liberalism, which fails to provide a sense of community adequate to the solidarity it requires … (and may) account for the faltering legitimacy of the welfare state in recent decades, not only in the United States but also in Europe, where public services and safety nets have traditionally been more generous (p. 131).”  In DIT framing, it seems meritocratic sentiment  which ignores  and actually denigrates the moral debt to the common ground is winning the debate.

REJECTING MERIT

Intriguingly, although for very different reasons, both Hayek representing free-market liberalism frame and Rawls representing welfare state liberalism reject meritocracy. Hayek rejected meritocracy because it is often framed as equality of opportunity, implying perhaps some need for income redistribution which Hayek adamantly rejects.  Rawls saw the arbitrariness of both talent and effort, and, also, that the market often rewards individuals fortuitously, so the idea wealth is deserved from talent and/or hard work, paid for in the market,  lacks in fact content.

Sandel claims Hayek, while rejecting merit to justify inequality, also rejects any kind of  redistribution because he is concerned about finding that common ground, as in what is moral and ethical, on which to decide said distribution.  The Hayekian concern is that it would get defined by some higher authority, the Hayekian Other Forum --- in effect becoming a central planning agency. DIT does not see it as an insurmountable problem, as said talk, talk to find the common ground could go on in an Other Forum built with some set of principles that all found reasoned, as in the Ostrom IAD principles.

Sandel claims Rawls has the same concerns about freedom, but finds the market as the forum is what is tyrannical.  Claiming market outcomes in the realm of wealth distribution is the tyranny. So, while Rawls also rejects merit, the problem is not that redistribution decided in an Other Forum is somehow going to be tyrannical, but that it is actually essential in order to assure freedom from a different kind of tyranny, that of the presumption of moral desert in the market.  In effect, not redistributing what the market has produced is what is tyrannical, as it takes away the freedom for the less fortunate to be and to do. It takes away from each of said people being able to pursue “…our own conception of the good life while respecting the right of others to do the same. This means abiding by principles of justice that we and our fellow citizens would all agree to if each of us set aside our particular interests and advantages (p. 132).”  Through the DIT lens, each and every person, no matter the talent and effort, and the fortuitous luck in play, needs to be able to operate on a better path 0Z. 

Sandel claims that Rawls is all about the matter of each person, “without knowing whether we would be rich or poor, strong or weak, healthy or unhealthy—would not … affirm whatever distribution of income resulted from the market. To the contrary, Rawls argues, it would lead us to accept only those inequalities that help the least-advantaged members of society (p. 133).” Clearly disdain for the least-advantaged vanishes, as the hubris also is reduced at the top.  People up the income and wealth ladder would then find it reasonable to pay some taxes to support the need for a common ground that works for everyone.

DIT would explain said common ground would come from starting with cognitive empathy going every direction, and then result in some affective empathy, which along with moral and ethical judgement leads to said common ground. It would result in what DIT characterizes as Optimal Inequality, an inequality that enhances both economic performance and social stability on some path 0Z.

So, while both Hayek and Rawls reject the notion of market desert coming out of talent, effort and other fortuitous events, Hayek simply ignores the problem of extreme inequality coming from the market. Hayek claims the market works in economic value terms, and, is not to be questioned, so, Hayek denies any role for redistribution. Rawls sees the market as just randomly moving money up and down the income and wealth ladder, so wants redistribution of what the market produces.

Neither set of claims deals with the real problem. DIT sees and fixes the real problem by pointing to a path 0Z. It is a path of Optimal Inequality, and it needs to come in the form of both pre-distribution and redistribution, looking to contributive and distributive justice operating in consort, both reflecting the shared ethic. Said ethic is an empathy-based other(shared across the spectrum)-interest like Adam Smith pointed to --- an ethic that works for mindful and reasoned people to find and see the common ground on which everyone stands.

MARKETS AND MERIT

Sandel points out that even with major philosophies like that espoused by Hayek and Rawls prevailing, with both rejecting meritocracy as a legitimate way to address what it means to be a just economy and society, in the real world, meritocratic societies still dominate. Said societies continue to demonstrate hubris among the successful and resentment among the disadvantaged, and, the situation is getting worse not better.  Hayek, and free-market liberalism in general, “ does not consider the possibility that the value of a person’s contribution to society could be something other than his or her market value (p. 136).”  Rawls while seeing the problem with market value also does not seem to distinguish money value as in price P from the market forum and non-money value O from the other forums of society.  Through the DIT lens, free-market liberalism does not see path 0M as having any relevance.  Also, egalitarian (welfare state) liberalism while in effect seeing it, does not give enough attention to how to form path 0M, or to make it visible in the dialogue about inequality.  Path 0M identified in DIT is given scarce to no attention in either kind of liberalism.

DIT makes it crystal clear that the value coming out of the Market Forum on some path 0G is not a complete measure of the contribution to society.  So, no moral and ethical justification can be made for the income produced for an individual on that path 0G, as though it is somehow deserved.  Now, alternatively,  income earned on path 0Z as influenced by the Other Forum of public opinion --- the talk, talk, talk influence view of what is reasonable ---  does start to move that direction. The moral and ethical dimension, as in what people can go along with, as reflected in path 0M has influenced not only the price P but the income earned on path 0Z.

So, Sandel being critical of a researcher by the name of Mankiw holds some scientific credentials if what Mankiw is referring to is path 0G trajectory.   Sandel quotes Mankiw:  “People should get what they deserve. A person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions (p. 135).”  Perhaps, as DIT clarifies, but it can only be justified, if at all, only on path 0Z. The Mankiw claim has no science&humanities based credentials if it is about path 0G choices, which is what Mankiw is likely referring to as a mainstream economist using SIT to make claims.

MARKET VALUE VERSUS MORAL VALUE

The DIT lens shines here, as it sees the jointness in market&moral value, priceP&valueO as reflected on path 0Z.  Market value arises on path 0G. Moral value arises on path 0M. The Market Forum produces price P on path 0G.  The Other Forum of Figure 6, dealing in morals and ethics,  evolves value O, bringing it into play to influence price P through path 0M in the Market Forum in Figure 5.

So, it is easy to make sense of the Frank Knight claim, quoted in Sandel, as in considering the matter of  the “…productive contribution is an ethical measure of desert… an examination of the question will readily show that productive contribution can have little or no ethical significance (p. 135).” True, if only path 0G is in view. Yet, Knight is missing the reality that bringing the ethical dimension from path 0M into play can make for the moral and ethical to influence production on path 0Z. Some producers are ethical, and, as a result, the shared with the other, empathy-based ethic is influencing the nature of the product being produced and sold.

Sandel points to two arguments Knight made with regard to ethical outcomes from production. The first argument is about talent in production (seeing Figure 1 as isoquants) demonstrated on path 0G.  And, yes, expressing only said talent does not make it moral and ethical.  Through the DIT lens, operating exclusively on path 0G also, then, does not make for “an ethical claim to a superior share of the social dividend, except to the extent that the capacity is itself the product of conscientious effort (p. 135).”

The second argument is also easily explained with DIT, relating to the notion that the evolved price P in a Market Forum “…equates market value (i.e., price P) with social contribution. As Knight points out, meeting market demand is not necessarily the same thing as making a truly valuable contribution to society (p. 138).” Through the DIT lens,  meeting market demand on path 0G is not the same as operating near path 0M, with attention to that path 0M essential to making a valuable contribution --- to include moral and ethical --- to the common good of society.  As DIT clarifies, Path 0Z becomes the path that contributes jointly to the market&society, material&moral dimension of economy&society, with valuable contributions in both domains. The price P evolving on path 0Z could be claimed to represent a social contribution, while the price P on path 0G would not. Now, having pointed to that refinement, an ethical demand curve expressing moral and ethical wants (e.g., buying a product built with sensitivity to sustaining the Spaceship Earth system) could also lead to an ethics sensitive supply (a firm producing that product with sustaining techniques) on path 0Z.

And, on the point of what an economic model can address:   “... it is a mistake to assume that the money people make by catering to consumer preferences reflects merit or moral desert. Its ethical significance depends on moral considerations that no economic model can supply (p. 138).”  Well, yes, Knight is certainly referring to the economic model represented in SIT, as the model does not have a placeholder for the moral and ethical dimension, seeing only path 0G.  As an alternative that transcends and goes beynd SIT, DIT as the economic model can do the consideration of the moral and ethical dimension as represented in path 0M. So, the market value of a contribution arises on path 0G while the true price P --- tempered by value O --- arises on path 0Z.

The example of the high school chemistry teacher in the movie Breaking Bad producing a high grade methamphetamine on path 0G means the common good path 0M is not being given any attention. Doing the correct thing by society --- serving the moral and ethical common good ---would put that teacher back into only teaching on path 0G with payoff in the common good of educating young people.  Rather than using path 0G to produce illicit drugs for said youth, the teacher would once again be influenced by, and attuned to producing the common good on Path 0M, which is an essential part of moral and ethical production.

Sandel continues, pointing out that while Knight was a laissez-faire economist, and, therefore, “a skeptic of ambitious projects of social reform (still) inveighed against the idea that market prices are the measure of moral desert or ethical value. The product or contribution is always measured in terms of price, which does not correspond closely with ethical value or human significance. The money value of a product is a matter of the ‘demand,’ which in turn reflects the tastes and purchasing power of the buying public and the availability of substitute commodities. All these factors are largely created and controlled by the workings of the economic system itself … Hence their results can have in themselves no ethical significance as standards for judging the system (p. 138).”  Well, yes, SIT framing once again, which can only see path 0G.  If one sees path 0Z, price P can have some ethical significance.

Sandel goes on to point out that most mainstream economics claim there is “no judging tastes, that it is impossible to rank some wants as higher or worthier than others… (yet Knight claimed in opposition that) an economic system should be judged less by its efficiency in satisfying consumer demand than ‘by the wants which it generates [and] the type of character which it forms in its people … Ethically, the creation of the right wants is more important than want-satisfaction’ (p. 138).”  DIT makes clear that wants can indeed be judged, and, people do it all the time in the Other Forums of community-life, working out the best balance in the pushpins (wants)&poetry(what is ethical) all the time in truly well-functioning, jointly operant Market&Other Forum reality.  The Other Forum(s) in effect influence the wants, moving the system to path 0Z.

Bottomline:  As Sandel points out, “Hayek tells the wealthy that although their wealth is no measure of their merit, it does reflect the superior value of their contribution to society. For Knight, this is overly flattering. Being good at making money measures neither our merit nor the value of our contribution (p. 138).”   Both are clearly pointing to path 0G outcomes, and, yes, one cannot claim it is deserved without consideration of the moral and ethical dimension of that deservedness represented on path 0Z.  As Adam Smith said it, one needed to not only Be loved (for talent, effort, luck at becoming wealthy) but also Be lovely, reining in the hubris frame of mind. It is about the joint effort to BeLoved&BeLovely.  Both the hubris at the top and the resentment at the bottom are resolved on path 0Z.

DESERVING OR ENTITLED?

So, if merit is not justification for moral desert, what is? Sandel points out that Rawls pointed to “entitlements to legitimate expectations (p. 140).”  So, what makes for an entitlement to the income earned?  Sandel claims Rawls say justice as coming first, as in putting in place the rules of the system, installing the institution.  DIT would say such rules, and the form of the underlying institution, would come out of the Other Forum.  Said Forum would evolve what reasoned people could go along, and, thus, giving content to entitlement.

So, Rawls is suggesting a non-meritocratic way of thinking about renumeration, income and wealth inequality, and justifying the income a person earns.  It is all about defining success as an entitlement that arises only after the underlying rules seemed reasonable, rules established before one knows where one might land on the income and wealth ladder, as in what talent and ability to work hard one happens to be endowed.  Sandel does not mention it, but it seems it is about the Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance.  Lay down the institution, the rules of engagement, while behind the veil, not knowing where one will land in life.  Then, go to work, and whatever one earns under said rules, in that institution, is perhaps justified, part of a just society, as in the notion of an entitlement to what can be reasonably expected.

DIT would suggest Rawls is focusing attention on path 0Z, where the institutions in place --- the rules under which one plays --- are reflected on some path 0M. So, as long as one is tempering the application of talent, effort and luck on path 0G with what is the agreed to institution, the agreed to other (shared with the other)-interest frames on path 0M, one is perhaps entitled  (i.e., not deserving, but entitled) to the income one earns. Said agreement about path 0M behind the veil of ignorance would also have been one of not engaging in hubris at the top, nor in disdain for the bottom, as one would not know which group one would be living within.  In DIT terms, it is about a massive expression of cognitive and affective empathy, with moral judgement bringing both into play, while standing behind the veil of ignorance.  It would mean a willingness to pay taxes, including progressive taxes, to ensure the people down the ladder who are not as capable to also have a decent life.

ATTITUDES TOWARD SUCCESS

Sandel is not satisfied that the Rawlsian entitlements within a just society works, as in:  “Entitlements to legitimate expectations may be as potent a source of meritocratic hubris and working-class resentment as claims based on merit, virtue, or desert (p. 143).” It fails to remove the disdain of the working class by the hubristic people at the top, no matter how it happened.  And, it even gets worse:  Many at the top will hubristically declare it is the smart at the top in contrast to the dumb at the bottom, to justify that  frame of thinking.

CHANCE AND CHOICE

Sandel speaks to the notion of luck egalitarianism, as in the idea that the lucky (in talent, effort, being smart, won the lottery) need to freely and widely share their good fortune down the income and wealth ladder to the people who were less lucky, less fortunate to win.   Big problem is, some choose to gamble, as in taking unprecedented risks in their occupations, or, simply gamble and otherwise take risks as an addiction, or for enjoyment.  So, in what sense is it appropriate for the lucky who perhaps took fewer risks to send money downstream to the gambler?  Also, this still leaves out the people that tried but failed, even having reasonable talent and working hard. Luck egalitarianism also does not work.

VALORIZING TALENT

Sandel once again points to “… the morally unattractive attitudes toward success and failure to which meritocracies are prone—hubris among the winners and humiliation among the losers (p. 148).”  Sandel points to how the egalitarian liberals are especially prone to valorizing the smart and showing disdain for the dumb.  So, genetics are presumed to play a huge role in how much income and wealth one gains access to, and, then, need to consider sharing with the people less genetically endowing in thinking and analytical capability.  So, egalitarian liberals also do not provide a reasoned solution to the problems of meritocracy.

MERITOCRACY’S RISE

It is here.  It is the dominant frame  of reference. As Sandel says, referring back to Young the British Sociologist who is dismayed his prediction came through, as in “the rich and the powerful, ‘insufferably smug’’’  are riding high. Sandel points to how the frame of reference has become:  “Those who work hard and play by the rules should be able to rise as far as their talents will take them … Meritocratic elites had become so accustomed to intoning this mantra that they failed to notice it was losing its capacity to inspire. Tone-deaf to the mounting resentments of those who had not shared in the bounty of globalization, they missed the mood of discontent. The populist backlash caught them by surprise. They did not see the insult implicit in the meritocratic society they were offering (p. 151).”  Young had acted in 1958 as to what he believed would happen in the meritocracy based systems already in play in the UK and the US by 2033.  Sandel was writing this for publication in 2020, and, is referring to what happened in many meritocratic, western democracies in and around 2015-2016, with the populist revolt in both Britain and the United States as cases in point.  The prediction of the Tyranny of Meritocracy happened 15-16 years earlier than he expected.