"The Plague of Doves" | "The Tyranny of Merit"

 

Louise Erdrich 소설 "The Plague of Doves" (2008)

 

 

 

Michael J. Sandel, "The Tyranny of Merit: What's

Become of the Common Good?" (2020)

 

"[T]hose who land on top come to believe that they deserve thier

success. And, if opportunities are truly equal, ... those

who are left behind deserves their fate as well.

 

This way of thinking about success makes it hard to believe that

'we are all in this together.' It invites the winners to consider their

success their own doing and the losers to feel that those on top

look down with disdain." (Prologue, p. 5)

 

"[Friedrich A.] Hayek rejects the notion 'that all must be assured

an equal start and the same prospect' for success. Such a

principle would require the state to control 'all conditions relevant

to a particular individual's prospects,' a far-reaching project that

Hayek considers 'the opposite of freedom.'" (p. 126)

 

"Hayek draws distinction between merit and value. Merit involves

a moral judgment about what people deserve, whereas value is

simply a measure of what consumers are willing to pay

for this or that good." (p. 126)

 

"'No one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more

favorable starting place in society. But it does not follow that one

should eliminate these distinctions.' Rather than handicap the

talented, [John] Rawls would have the winners share their winning

with those less fortunate than themselves.... Rawls call this way of

dealing with the unequal talents 'the differnce principle.'" (p. 129)

 

"Although Rawls and Hayek differ politically, their rejection of

merit as the basis of justice highlights two philosophical

commitments they share. One is about the difficulty of coming

to agreement, in pluralist societies, about which virtues and

qualities of character are worthy of reward. The other is about

freedom." (p. 132)

 

"And so ... both Hayek and Rawls reject the idea that economic

rewards should reflect what people deserve." (p. 133)

 

"[Frank] Knight's insight ['We cannot accept want-satisfaction as

a final criterion of value because we do not in fact regard our

wants as final'] drives a wedge between two concepts that Hayek

conflates -- the value of economic contribution measured by the

market and its actual value." (p. 138)

 

Rawls's point is that we cannot know who is entitled to what until

we first identify the principles of justice that should govern those

rules and, more braodly, the basic structure of society." (p. 141)

 

"My proposal to replace some or all of the payroll tax with a

financial transaction tax -- a 'sin tax,' in effect, on casino-like

speculation that does not help the real economy -- is intended

as one way of framing such a debate ['about what counts as

a valuable contribution to the common good]." (p. 221)

 

"[W]e cannot determine what counts as a contribution worth

affirmning without reasoning together about the purposes

and the ends of the common life we share. And we cannot

dliberate about common purposes and ends

without a sense of belonging. (p. 221)

 

"Individual happiness does not only require that men should

be free to rise to new positions of comfort and distinction; it

also requires that they shoul be able to lead a life of didgnity

and culture, whether they rise or not." (p. 225)

[Quote from R. H. Tawney, "Equality" (1931)]

 

"It does not require perfect equality. But it does require that

citizens from different walks of life encounter one another in

common spaces and public places. For this is how we learn

to negotiate and abide our differences. And this is how we

come to care for the common good." (p. 227, 본문 마지막 쪽)