True story: About 20 years ago, I gave German tutoring to students. Many of the children and teenagers came from non-European countries. A student with a migrant background tested me and said, after I asked the class to do their homework regularly: "In the country I come from, I don't have to do homework to get good grades. Instead, my father gives money to the teacher who grades me, and I get an A." I spontaneously replied: And what's fairer, getting good grades through your own efforts or through your dad's money? The student admitted without hesitation - of course, through your own efforts.
I tell you this to illustrate that the principle of fair competition is intuitively understood around the globe, even by very young people. There seems to be an almost innate understanding of justice. Does this also apply when one considers the common good (in the sense of Rousseau's volonté générale)? Is this also intuitively understood? Yes and no, I would say at first. But this question would require more in-depth research.
I've watched this interview twice now; the topic has interested me for a long time, and accordingly, I read Michael Young's book "Rise of Meritocracy" from the 1950s a few years ago. (Incidentally, Young's arguments were in some parts very similar to those of Markovits today.) At some point in the middle of the interview the term “superstar lawyer” is mentioned. Given the two poles outlined above – competition and the common good – one immediately asks: What makes someone a “superstar lawyer”? Good analytical and rhetorical skills, plenty of money, tenacity, and perseverance? Or the ability to speak and judge in the interest of the common good? It is not for nothing that there is the motif in literature of the lawyer who uses his skills solely for his clients and not for a higher justice (see, for example, the film “The Devil’s Advocate” from 1997). People intuitively recognize the injustice when a career-oriented lawyer without any conflict of conscience earns more money than a lawyer who acts fairly.
Shouldn’t meritocracy rather be seen as a kind of machine or system with which a society approaches the ideal of the common good? (See the brain surgeon example in the interview.) Against this background, the response of Michael Sandel in his book “The Tyranny of Merit: What’s become of the common good?” (from 31:30) is only logical.
Personally, I am far more interested in the tension that Sandel addresses than in the question of whether it is legitimate or illegitimate for an individual (e.g., the superstar lawyer) to receive a lot of money for their work. (Especially since I no longer consider the difference in quality of life between middle and high income to be all that great in a modern industrialized country.)
Once again, an exciting and inspiring interview! The level here is significantly higher than that of much of the content in the established media. Nevertheless, the old media are still swimming in money (at least in Germany), while it is difficult to earn a sufficient income via Substack or other digital platforms. That is - in the meritocratic sense - not fair, is it?
True story: About 20 years ago, I gave German tutoring to students. Many of the children and teenagers came from non-European countries. A student with a migrant background tested me and said, after I asked the class to do their homework regularly: "In the country I come from, I don't have to do homework to get good grades. Instead, my father gives money to the teacher who grades me, and I get an A." I spontaneously replied: And what's fairer, getting good grades through your own efforts or through your dad's money? The student admitted without hesitation - of course, through your own efforts.
I tell you this to illustrate that the principle of fair competition is intuitively understood around the globe, even by very young people. There seems to be an almost innate understanding of justice. Does this also apply when one considers the common good (in the sense of Rousseau's volonté générale)? Is this also intuitively understood? Yes and no, I would say at first. But this question would require more in-depth research.
I've watched this interview twice now; the topic has interested me for a long time, and accordingly, I read Michael Young's book "Rise of Meritocracy" from the 1950s a few years ago. (Incidentally, Young's arguments were in some parts very similar to those of Markovits today.) At some point in the middle of the interview the term “superstar lawyer” is mentioned. Given the two poles outlined above – competition and the common good – one immediately asks: What makes someone a “superstar lawyer”? Good analytical and rhetorical skills, plenty of money, tenacity, and perseverance? Or the ability to speak and judge in the interest of the common good? It is not for nothing that there is the motif in literature of the lawyer who uses his skills solely for his clients and not for a higher justice (see, for example, the film “The Devil’s Advocate” from 1997). People intuitively recognize the injustice when a career-oriented lawyer without any conflict of conscience earns more money than a lawyer who acts fairly.
Shouldn’t meritocracy rather be seen as a kind of machine or system with which a society approaches the ideal of the common good? (See the brain surgeon example in the interview.) Against this background, the response of Michael Sandel in his book “The Tyranny of Merit: What’s become of the common good?” (from 31:30) is only logical.
Personally, I am far more interested in the tension that Sandel addresses than in the question of whether it is legitimate or illegitimate for an individual (e.g., the superstar lawyer) to receive a lot of money for their work. (Especially since I no longer consider the difference in quality of life between middle and high income to be all that great in a modern industrialized country.)
Once again, an exciting and inspiring interview! The level here is significantly higher than that of much of the content in the established media. Nevertheless, the old media are still swimming in money (at least in Germany), while it is difficult to earn a sufficient income via Substack or other digital platforms. That is - in the meritocratic sense - not fair, is it?