David Miller's Objection To Luck Egalitarianism

Experts argue about whether or not we have control over our lives. They question if destiny is determined by fate or by choices we make in our life. Two authors both take their sides on this topic producing evidence to support their claim. David Epstein author of The Sports Gene and Malcolm Gladwell author of Outliers: Story of Success both make an argument on how much we control in our lives in which they take different sides. David Epstein wrote about a track and field athlete who had incredible jumping ability despite never practicing high jumping. Malcolm Gladwell talks about how violinists were never able to float through musical school without putting in the practice hours. They each support their side with

Andrew Carnegie believes in a system based on principles and responsibility. The system is Individualism and when everyone strives towards the same goals the system is fair and prosperous. Carnegie’s essay is his attempt to show people a way to reach an accommodation between individualism and fairness. This system can only work if everyone knows and participates in his or her responsibilities. I will discuss Carnegie’s thesis, his arguments and the possible results of his goals.

Give and Take is a book written by Adam Grant to describe his view of economic drivers and motivations through the lens of his theory of Give and Take. Economics is the study of how people make choices under scarcity and the results of these choices for society and Mr. Grant asserts that success isn’t just achieved by those who take it; but the majority of success goes to individuals who are willing to look out for others at their potential detriment. According to Grant, the perception of givers are often taken advantage, his research indicates that givers make up a majority of those at the top of the success ladder, even though they are more likely to “sacrifice their own interests to benefit others. Give and Take compares to economic theories like scarcity, cost/benefit analysis, equilibrium, and opportunity costs. To better understand the principles of economics through the lens of Give and Take, one must understand the concepts of Grant’s Give and Take as a description of day to day operations as they relate to well established economic theories.

Continuing with the idea of people believing that it is unfair how the upper class has more advantages in life, this bring us to the “meritocratic model” which is the model that “recognizes inequities and tries to correct for socioeconomic disadvantages” says Arora (Arora 87). This is the system that is related with the United States (Arora 87) and the reason that most people believe that this model is fair is because people with low incomes or with fewer benefits are offered programs such as the Headstart program and subsidized healthcare. Doing this would help out the needy and put everyone at somewhat of an equal place in life. However thinking deeply into the idea of these programs, they are not entirely fair from everyone’s point of view. For example, some people are born with something that Arora refers to as the “natural lottery” which is described as “people who are born with certain talents and attributes- for instance, oratory, musical acumen, physical beauty and health, athleticism, good memory and

“I can control my destiny, but not my fate. Destiny means there are opportunities to turn right or left, but fate is a one-way street. I believe we all have the choice as to whether we fulfill our destiny, but our fate is sealed” (Paulo Coelho). In other words, people can control what they want to do in life, but they cannot choose what happens in that matter. Do people have a choice to succeed or is it naturally given to someone? In the Outliers: The Story of Success, by Malcolm Gladwell, the author argues that people make their own success in life, by using examples of music skill, performance, and other talents to back up his claim. On the other hand, The Sports Gene, by David Epstein, argues

Social inequality is the reality of unequal chances and rewards for diverse social positions or categories

Every day people wake up, get ready for the day, and go to work or school. By the end of the day, these individuals may end up failing a test, get demoted, receive a raise in their salaries, or get selected as employee of the month. The answer to whether or not these achievements and failures are a product of these people’s merit and effort are often questioned. Looking at the American society, there are many issues that occur which keep members of society from being able to say that these achievements and failures were due to their merit and effort. The issues that are able to support this idea that American society is unfair and that an individual’s fate is not largely a product of his or her merit and effort are income trends, the gender

Bowles and Gintis also argue that in order to prevent rebellion from those disadvantaged by the inequalities of capitalism, it is necessary to produce ideologies that explain and justify inequality as fair, natural and inevitable. If people think inequality is justified then they are less likely to challenge the capitalist system. According to Bowles and Gintis, the education system plays a key role in producing such ideologies. They describe the education system as a giant ‘myth making machine’ and focus on how education promotes the ‘myth of meritocracy’. Meritocracy refers to a system where everyone has an equal opportunity to achieve, where rewards are based on ability and effort. This means that those who gain the highest rewards and status deserve it because they are the most able and hardworking. Bowles and Gintis argue that meritocracy does not actually exist. Evidence showed that the main factor determining whether or not someone has a high income is their family and class background, not their ability or educational achievement. By

In his essay, “The Gospel of Wealth,” Andrew Carnegie argues that the imbalance of economic wealth is essential to the advancement of society. In days past, there was little difference between the quality of life between a ruler and his subject. Alluding to a time when Carnegie visited the chief of an indigenous American tribe, he observed that the Chief of the Indians ', who lived in a state of antiquity, tent was no different from even the poorest among the tribe. Returning back to this stage of civilization would be detrimental to both the ruler and subject. Is it better for all of us to live in poverty than for a few of us to have riches? Shouldn 't those who prove themselves masters in art and literature and those of higher intelligence have more than those with no talent? This is the way society is progressing. Whether or not one actually believes that doesn 't matter, as changing the destiny of civilization is beyond one 's power. (Carnegie, 28-29)

What would happen to society if all individuals were equal? Not in the sense of equal rights, freedom or benefits, but equal in intelligence levels, beauty and athleticism. Well, In “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., this is how society is run. The gifted, strong and beautiful are handicapped for being one of a kind and made to “fit in” to society. With society pushing towards equality, this shows the reality of all individuals living the same lives. Vonnegut Jr. uses the Bergeron family show equality is not all it’s hyped up to be. People are unable to be creative, show their true self’s and unable to continue the growth to become a better society. Individual talent and gifts are needed because it maintains our identity, to

It has always been a question for people as to whether their lives are a part of a pre-written destiny or something that can be forged for oneself. Over time, the idea of fate and destiny has been questioned and pondered by everyone. The two book excerpts, The Sports Gene, by David Epstein and, Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell detail their views on the matter. While The Sports Gene leans more towards skill being provided by the luck of the genetic draw, Outliers banks more on time spent practicing and developing the skill than he does natural talent. Malcolm Gladwell presents the best argument because he provides more sources when proving the significance of his point.

If we look at these ever-present needs and realize the U.S. is an affluent enough society to meet them, we realize Carnegie may not have been as fit a person at distributing wealth as his public persona would indicate. Carnegie’s essay is now probably included in collegiate literature because he was a wealthy man; Galbraith’s essay is now probably included in collegiate literature because it stands on strong, morally-compassionate ideas. Galbraith would likely have chosen to redistribute wealth in a compassionate way that attempted to remove the environmental factor that causes certain “islands” of the population to remain poor and unproductive, paying special attention to the opportunities of the children in that area. Even further, he [Galbraith] ( 2010) proposed solutions for those who have no means to contribute to the productivity of society: the sick, the handicapped, the mentally ill (p. 413).

Social inequality can practically be made apparent at any moment of someone’s life – whether at work or school amongst peers or simply watching the news in the morning. According to Dalton Conley, social inequality is narrowly defined as “a condition in which a difference in wealth, power, prestige, or status based on nonnatural conventions exist” (2017 p.241). Moreover, social inequality is a process whereby society can determine how a class of people is expected to coexist within predetermined social, political, and economic boundaries. The affected class will live within the predefined constraints, and the affected class will then pass the predefined constraints on to future generations. It is imperative to understand that social inequality is a result of social stratification, which according to

People with natural talent have more drive because they want to be the best they can be, and try harder at the sport or whatever they are doing. People that have to try harder than them don’t have as much drive as them, and don’t try as hard. They also get intimidated by people with natural talent, and feel as though they shouldn’t be doing this, and think that they should quit because they will never be as good as the person with natural talent.

Society holds many structures that mould human performance and produce opportunities for some, but inequalities for others (Morrall, 2009). These structures in society are organized by the hierarchies of class, ethnicity and gender (Crossman, 2016). Due to having a society based on hierarchies, social inequalities are inevitable. Social inequality refers to the ways in which a group or individual of a certain social position may receive unequal opportunities or distribution of ‘goods’ such as education, income, living conditions and healthcare (Walker, 2009). These unequal opportunities may be given to someone because of their ethnicity, gender, income, religion or social class (Walker, 2009). For example, people in a high social class will be able to pay for their children to go to a good private school for a good education, whereas lower-class or working class people will struggle to afford the same education.