This is how society dies

[Admiral Yi]

It's getting to the point where I'm having difficulty following your train of thought.  I can the little islands of conclusion sticking out of the sea, but the water between them is very murky and unclear.

[merithyn]

In the US and UK, the overriding belief that people should rise or fall on their own merits doesn't actually benefit all of society, which leads to more and more people unable to rise. It becomes a death spiral, which is exactly where we are right now. That prevailing attitude isn't seen in most of Europe, and so as a society, they've managed to lift more people up, creating an environment that allows others to go higher.

Again I'm not convinced that's a UK thing. We're a monarchy with hereditary peers and five of our post-war Prime Ministers are Old Etonians. We may not do enough to fix it, but I don't think we can be seen as a country that is ignorant of the advantages of birth/effect of class.

As the late Gerald Grosvenor, Duke of Westminster and one of the richest men in the country put it when asked if what advice he'd give a young entrepreneur: "Make sure they have an ancestor who was a very close friend of William the Conqueror."

Fair enough. I thought the UK still believed - lords and ladies notwithstanding - that anyone can succeed if they just work hard enough. I'm comfortable admitting that I don't have enough information on that point.

[Valmy]

"Higher achievers" mean almost nothing in my experience, quite frankly.

Damn well you must think I am a piece of shit then. I practically destroyed my health achieving mediocrity.

[merithyn]

"Higher achievers" mean almost nothing in my experience, quite frankly.

Damn well you must think I am a piece of shit then. I practically destroyed my health achieving mediocrity.

I think his point is that they are no better than you.

[Berkut]

"Higher achievers" mean almost nothing in my experience, quite frankly.

Damn well you must think I am a piece of shit then. I practically destroyed my health achieving mediocrity.

I think his point is that they are no better than you.

I actually don't think that is his point.

I think his point is that there is so much that goes into success (and failure) that is largely beyond our control, that putting too much "virtue" into the degree to which anyone achieves, or fails to achieve success isn't really that interesting.

I agree with him nearly completely. I don't think there is much of any useful measure of anyone basic virtue can be ascertained from looking at how successful they are, or lack of success for that matter.

There are *practical* reasons we want to encourage people to achieve greatly, because in most cases society benefits from that achievement. So we should strive for a system where the people who increase our productivity with the latest new tech, or enrich our lives through their athletic endeavors, or art, or just straight out popular culture entertainment, should be rewarded in order to encourage others to strive for that reward as well. But there isn't anything instrinsically based on some moral evaluation of their virtue tied to that.

Why is this important? Because if the reason we want the Bezos of the world, or the Michael Jordans, or the Tom Hanks or the Elon Musks is simply utilitarian, rather than emotive, then it is perfectly reasonable for us to say that there is some kind of limit to that reward, some point beyond which the societal benefit is no longer being served by them becoming one more dollar richer. I think it is perfectly defensible, for example, to say that if Bezos is worth, let me check....116.2 billion today, then if we had a system in place where today he was only worth 1/4 that, so say $30 billion, because the other $80 billion of the wealth he created went to his employees, his other stakeholders, and into society in the form of taxes on Amazon's profits, then we could safely say that Bezos would still have done everything he actually did do - it was never the drive to make that extra $80 billion on top of the first $30 billion that was the key to his success.

IMO, Elon Musk or Bill Gates or any of them - none of them could have a tiny fraction of the wealth they have *except* that they are social human creatures who thrive in social systems that do an amazing job of allowing them to leverage their brilliance against billions of other humans output and consumption. None of them, no matter how "virtuously" exceptional, would be any better that a near starving ape in the woods without being part of the human social group. I want Bezos to be rich because I want the next potential Bezos to want to be rich. But I know that the next Bezos will be some human who exists in a social construct, and there are probably a thousand or a million other humans who COULD have been Bezos, but were not for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with their intrinsic virtue.

Now, if you believe that Bezos success is in fact a measure of his virtue (this is the new Christian prosperity gospel) then in fact society has no more call on this 116th billion dollar than they had on his first - he "earned" it by his virtue, and while we might tax it, we do so with great regret and realization that we are doing him a wrong, and evil. Perhaps a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless.

[Valmy]

"Higher achievers" mean almost nothing in my experience, quite frankly.

Damn well you must think I am a piece of shit then. I practically destroyed my health achieving mediocrity.

I think his point is that they are no better than you.

Maybe in some great metaphysical sense they are no better human being than myself. In the sense of being better at Electrical Engineering school though they have me there.

[merithyn]

"Higher achievers" mean almost nothing in my experience, quite frankly.

Damn well you must think I am a piece of shit then. I practically destroyed my health achieving mediocrity.

I think his point is that they are no better than you.

I actually don't think that is his point.

I think his point is that there is so much that goes into success (and failure) that is largely beyond our control, that putting too much "virtue" into the degree to which anyone achieves, or fails to achieve success isn't really that interesting.

I agree with him nearly completely. I don't think there is much of any useful measure of anyone basic virtue can be ascertained from looking at how successful they are, or lack of success for that matter.

There are *practical* reasons we want to encourage people to achieve greatly, because in most cases society benefits from that achievement. So we should strive for a system where the people who increase our productivity with the latest new tech, or enrich our lives through their athletic endeavors, or art, or just straight out popular culture entertainment, should be rewarded in order to encourage others to strive for that reward as well. But there isn't anything instrinsically based on some moral evaluation of their virtue tied to that.

Why is this important? Because if the reason we want the Bezos of the world, or the Michael Jordans, or the Tom Hanks or the Elon Musks is simply utilitarian, rather than emotive, then it is perfectly reasonable for us to say that there is some kind of limit to that reward, some point beyond which the societal benefit is no longer being served by them becoming one more dollar richer. I think it is perfectly defensible, for example, to say that if Bezos is worth, let me check....116.2 billion today, then if we had a system in place where today he was only worth 1/4 that, so say $30 billion, because the other $80 billion of the wealth he created went to his employees, his other stakeholders, and into society in the form of taxes on Amazon's profits, then we could safely say that Bezos would still have done everything he actually did do - it was never the drive to make that extra $80 billion on top of the first $30 billion that was the key to his success.

IMO, Elon Musk or Bill Gates or any of them - none of them could have a tiny fraction of the wealth they have *except* that they are social human creatures who thrive in social systems that do an amazing job of allowing them to leverage their brilliance against billions of other humans output and consumption. None of them, no matter how "virtuously" exceptional, would be any better that a near starving ape in the woods without being part of the human social group. I want Bezos to be rich because I want the next potential Bezos to want to be rich. But I know that the next Bezos will be some human who exists in a social construct, and there are probably a thousand or a million other humans who COULD have been Bezos, but were not for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with their intrinsic virtue.

Now, if you believe that Bezos success is in fact a measure of his virtue (this is the new Christian prosperity gospel) then in fact society has no more call on this 116th billion dollar than they had on his first - he "earned" it by his virtue, and while we might tax it, we do so with great regret and realization that we are doing him a wrong, and evil. Perhaps a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless.

[Razgovory]

One needs to be have an extreme egocentric view of the world to ascribe their success entirely to themselves - unless they live alone, on an island, without any contact with anyone, from birth.

That's probably why that strawman argument is so unpersuasive; no sane person thinks that they can ascribe their success entirely to themselves, nor do that for others.

And yet the President is not in an asylum.

[Sheilbh]

Fair enough. I thought the UK still believed - lords and ladies notwithstanding - that anyone can succeed if they just work hard enough. I'm comfortable admitting that I don't have enough information on that point.

I don't know I think that sort of hope and confidence is fairly American

This is a couple of year's old - also why I just struggle with the guy's description of people's attitudes:

Poll: half of Brits believe background determines success

Social mobility barometer exposes pessimism among young people and stark geographical divide.
Published 15 June 2017

The scale of Britain's 'us and them' society is laid bare today (15 June 2017) in a new report which finds that nearly half of people (48%) believe that where you end up in society today is mainly determined by your background and who your parents are. This compares with 32% who believe everyone has a fair chance to get on regardless of their background.

The social mobility barometer uncovers feelings of deep social pessimism among young people with half (51%) of 18- to 24-year-olds agreeing with this statement, compared with 40% of those aged 65 and over.

The new poll, published by the Social Mobility Commission, will gauge public attitudes to social mobility annually over the next 5 years. It finds that half of young people think the situation is getting worse with only 30% of 18- to 24-year-olds believing it is becoming easier to move up in British society.

Meanwhile, only a fifth of 18- to 24-year-olds believe they have a better level of job security compared with their parents, and only 17% say they have better job satisfaction.

The poll of nearly 5,000 people, carried out by YouGov before the general election, finds that 4 in 5 people (79%) believe that there is a large gap between the social classes in Britain today. A large majority of people believe that poorer people are held back at nearly every stage of their lives - from childhood, through education and into their careers.

Over three-quarters of people (76%) say poorer people have less opportunity to go to a top university. Meanwhile 66% say poorer people have less opportunity to get into a professional career.

It finds that nearly half of all Brits (49%) consider themselves working class and just over a third (36%) think of themselves as middle class with just one per cent identifying as upper class. Interestingly, 78% of those who grew up in a working class family classify themselves as this now.

A quarter (23%) of people who say that their family was working class when they were growing up, said that their social background has held them back in their working life.

One key finding is that the public believe a geographical divide exists in Britain today with nearly three-quarters of people (71%) say there are 'fairly or very' large differences in opportunity depending on where you live in the country.

Those living in Scotland (75%), Wales (75%) and the North East (76%) are most likely to think that differences in opportunities exist. Around 47% of those who moved from where they grew up say if they had stayed where they were, they would not had as many opportunities in life.

The Social Mobility Barometer also explores public attitudes to individuals own past social mobility experiences as well as their expectations for future generations.

The barometer finds that people believe that more needs to be done to help those at the bottom of society. Over 6 in 10 people feel that those who are 'just about managing' are not getting enough support from government (61%), while 49% say the least well off are not getting enough support.

[Malthus]

"Higher achievers" mean almost nothing in my experience, quite frankly.

Damn well you must think I am a piece of shit then. I practically destroyed my health achieving mediocrity.

I think his point is that they are no better than you.

I actually don't think that is his point.

I think his point is that there is so much that goes into success (and failure) that is largely beyond our control, that putting too much "virtue" into the degree to which anyone achieves, or fails to achieve success isn't really that interesting.

I agree with him nearly completely. I don't think there is much of any useful measure of anyone basic virtue can be ascertained from looking at how successful they are, or lack of success for that matter.

There are *practical* reasons we want to encourage people to achieve greatly, because in most cases society benefits from that achievement. So we should strive for a system where the people who increase our productivity with the latest new tech, or enrich our lives through their athletic endeavors, or art, or just straight out popular culture entertainment, should be rewarded in order to encourage others to strive for that reward as well. But there isn't anything instrinsically based on some moral evaluation of their virtue tied to that.

Why is this important? Because if the reason we want the Bezos of the world, or the Michael Jordans, or the Tom Hanks or the Elon Musks is simply utilitarian, rather than emotive, then it is perfectly reasonable for us to say that there is some kind of limit to that reward, some point beyond which the societal benefit is no longer being served by them becoming one more dollar richer. I think it is perfectly defensible, for example, to say that if Bezos is worth, let me check....116.2 billion today, then if we had a system in place where today he was only worth 1/4 that, so say $30 billion, because the other $80 billion of the wealth he created went to his employees, his other stakeholders, and into society in the form of taxes on Amazon's profits, then we could safely say that Bezos would still have done everything he actually did do - it was never the drive to make that extra $80 billion on top of the first $30 billion that was the key to his success.

IMO, Elon Musk or Bill Gates or any of them - none of them could have a tiny fraction of the wealth they have *except* that they are social human creatures who thrive in social systems that do an amazing job of allowing them to leverage their brilliance against billions of other humans output and consumption. None of them, no matter how "virtuously" exceptional, would be any better that a near starving ape in the woods without being part of the human social group. I want Bezos to be rich because I want the next potential Bezos to want to be rich. But I know that the next Bezos will be some human who exists in a social construct, and there are probably a thousand or a million other humans who COULD have been Bezos, but were not for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with their intrinsic virtue.

Now, if you believe that Bezos success is in fact a measure of his virtue (this is the new Christian prosperity gospel) then in fact society has no more call on this 116th billion dollar than they had on his first - he "earned" it by his virtue, and while we might tax it, we do so with great regret and realization that we are doing him a wrong, and evil. Perhaps a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless.

If success or failure is due mainly to factors beyond an individual's control, there is no point to "encouraging" them to succeed, though, as whether they will succeed or not is not due to choices they make, but merely to circumstances. 

This whole debate is just the ancient 'free will vs. predestination' thing all over again, with the case being made for 'predestination'. 

I would agree that you can't determine whether someone is virtuous by whether they have achieved success or failure - but that is because our societies are not set up in such a manner that virtue is automatically rewarded with success and lack of virtue with failure. However, on average, in a just society people ought to increase their chances of success by displaying a bunch of boring old virtues, such as hard work, inventiveness, relative temperance, delay of gratification in the form of saving money, and the like. Of course no society is ever fully just, but that is something to strive towards - balancing justice with an acknowledgement that success breeds a certain amount of inequality.

To my mind, the real problem with our societies is that, increasingly, the deck is becoming stacked in favor of the wealthy and their children - thus making it more "predestined" than it has to be, in the form of fossilizing social mobility; where boring virtues such as hard work and the like are no longer rewarded for the average person as they ought to be. In short, that our societies are becoming ever more unjust.

[Valmy]

As the late Gerald Grosvenor, Duke of Westminster and one of the richest men in the country put it when asked if what advice he'd give a young entrepreneur: "Make sure they have an ancestor who was a very close friend of William the Conqueror."

Well that is just not true. William the Conqueror himself is a direct ancestor of mine, and almost certainly yours, and yet I have reaped very few rewards from this pedigree.

[Valmy]

To my mind, the real problem with our societies is that, increasingly, the deck is becoming stacked in favor of the wealthy and their children - thus making it more "predestined" than it has to be, in the form of fossilizing social mobility; where boring virtues such as hard work and the like are no longer rewarded for the average person as they ought to be. In short, that our societies are becoming ever more unjust.

Yes and I think that can be shown statistically to be the case.

That doesn't mean I will stop being impressed by somebody getting a 3.8 or better GPA in Engineering School having experienced that gauntlet, I don't care what Oex says.

[Oexmelin]

You can be impressed with whoever you want. Maybe extend some of your awe to people who get marginally less awesome GPA while having to deal with strained circumstances?

[Razgovory]

I'm happy that there are people who don't judge me for my lack of accomplishments.

[mongers]

I'm happy that there are people who don't judge me for my lack of accomplishments.

Ditto.