▲ | lwhi 12 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
I understand what you're trying to say, but I think you're making a false equivalence between socio-economic disparity and innate talent. Imagine the same person, cloned. Clone A is born into an economically challenged household; while clone B is born into an upper-middle class household. Now consider whether both clones would achieve the same results at A level. One could expect the child born into the poorer household to experience more challenges, and perhaps achieve worse results as a consequence. In this instance, how would it be appropriate to call clone A thick or less intelligent than clone B? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | patanegra 11 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
When you are a talented child born into a bad family, your success is to go from £1 to £10M. If you are a talented child born to a millionaire, your success is to go from £10M to £1bn. If you are a dumb child born to a millionaire, you go from £10M to £1. You probably assume that people with the same skills should have the same absolute outcomes. I don't. There shouldn't be glass ceilings for talented ones, so a son of a carpenter has a right to become a billionaire, or earn a Nobel Prize in science, or apply his talents in any field. But I don't think there exists any socioeconomic system that would deliver more equitable results and had more pros than cons, especially compared to the current system. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|