Arguments about fairness and justice have been up for debate for centuries. "What do we deserve?", a question that has many individuals raising their brows to their efforts in their pursuit to achieve their goals. If it is said that we are all placed on an equal standard why are there individuals struggling to stay afloat? In Arora’s essay, he examines three forms of economic modals of social justices that question that idea of why the prosperous or the impecunious "deserve" their position or stature in life. Out of all of Arora's economic modals that he presents the Meritocratic System is the fairest because it gives everyone a fighting chance. In Namit Arora’s essay, “What Do We Deserve?” he asks himself that exact question, he asked …show more content…
With the libertarian model, it’s a free market built for you to compete and win. Some find this unfair; because of people can be at a disadvantage. For example, race, sex, family success, etc. The egalitarian model is a model which states that “Since we can’t undo the inequities of the natural lottery, he writes, we must find a way to address the differences in the rewards that result from them.” (Arora 88). In other words, if a child was born into a rich family, a family with fame, then that child doesn’t deserve the rewards that he/she may receive. Some may find this unfair, because some believe if you work hard for it you should deserve your rewards. However, you can make a case that these rich kids has an easier path to reaping their rewards than a child born in poverty, perhaps. Most people tend to favor the United States current economic model, the meritocratic model. With this model, it focuses more on the equality of opportunity, and an effort to decrease socioeconomic disadvantages. So even if you were born in poverty, you can still make it to the top, you can …show more content…
She was born in one of the most racist states in all of America, which is Mississippi. She was raped at the age of 9 and had a baby at the age of 14, and her parents were in poverty. She wasn’t supposed to make it, but she worked hard, she pushed harder than most and with the meritocratic system, her hard work eventually paid off. Oprah is now worth $3 billion. This is why the meritocratic system is the correct system and the fairest system; there should be no need to alter it. You get what you earn, that’s how it should be. When viewing this image, observe what the message is saying. Jim and Seng have the same IQ of 150. However, Jim is going through extra measures to reach success while Seng is not. Therefore, Jim is going to be more successful in the meritocracy model, which is fair. Jim and Seng are both getting basic education, but Seng stop there he didn’t work beyond that. However, Jim when and got the best books he can afford, he got iso tutors, he found programs that can teach him things that basic education can’t teach. Jim worked harder than Seng, and that’s why he will most likely be more successful than Seng ever will. How would an individual feel if they know
All individuals have different paths and life goals. It is true that individuals may start out with more advantages than others, but it should not be used as a limitation to others. Mantsios lists several realities discussing the different levels of opportunity for Americans. In these realities, he describes that wealth and our economic status is important in order to reach success. In one of his realities, Mantsios discussed the privileges within inheritance laws stating: “…Americans do not have an equal opportunity to succeed, […]. Inheritance laws provide built-in privileges to the offspring of the wealthy and add to the likelihood of their economic success while handicapping the chances for everyone else” (392). It appears as if he only believes success comes out of extreme wealth, and if someone is not, they’re disadvantaged and will ultimately be less successful than others. Mantsios talks only in extremes; he discusses the very rich, the very poor and how each affects each other, while simultaneously arguing that there is little to no chance for those in the middle or lower class to grow and become successful. In contrast, Jay-Z discusses how he did not let the obstacles he faced, or his economic status limit him. He is quoted saying, “don’t let [society] diminish your accomplishment or dim your shine” (Packer 361). Here, he is taking a much more positive approach, stating that individuals should not limit their success based on their social class. Class should not be a tool used to limit individuals and their success. To say that an individual born into the upper class will just coast through life without hardship is untrue. In the same respect, to say that an individual born into lower or middle class will have no chance at success, is just as untrue. We all face different levels of hardship in life, therefore condemning an individual because they have a leg up or down in
“I was taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group,” Peggy McIntosh wrote in her article White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. Too often this country lets ignorance be a substitute for racism. Many believe that if it is not blatant racism, then what they are doing is okay. Both the video and the article show that by reversing the terms, there is proof that racism is still very existent in this world. By looking into A Class Divided and White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack along with their ability to broaden the cultural competence, once can see how race is still very prominent in our culture.
Mantsios defends his claim by sharing the four myths and opposing seven realities of the American dream of equal opportunity. Then comparing three profiles of people from upper, middle, and lower classes, then by proving the correlation between educational attainment and classes. In a country with democratic principles, the general public makes an impact on the country, but it’s truly governed by politicians and the incredible power of wealth. Mantsios gives up the economic spectrum break down by giving the facts on the differences between the one who have very little, a lot and not enough money. One myth that Mantsios makes in his essay is how “all Americans do not have an equal opportunities to succeed. Inheritance laws ensure a greater likelihood of success of the offspring of the wealthy” (295). The huge gap between the upper and lower classes shows the social struggle. Higher income classes have a more likely chance for successful inheritance which allows the wealth to get passed on to the offspring. However, Davidson contradicts the theory’s that were presented by Mantsios by stating “Maddie represents a large population: people who, for whatever reason, are not going to be able to leave the workforce long enough to get the skills they need”(349). However, if Maddie works hard enough she can prove Mantsios wrong. That doesn’t mean she has to go to college or get a higher education, of course, that would make everything simpler. All she has today is work her way up in the company to make something of herself to show that she can still reach her full
Anne learned from a young age that if you were a Negro, hard work will get you something, but most of the time, that something isn’t enough for what you need. This is the same for the fight against racial inequality. Though the programs made an impact and were successful in their own smaller battles, the larger battle still had yet to be won. Anne’s experiences had raised several doubts
In “What Do We Deserve?”, Arora takes a look at political philosophies and asks an important question, “How much of my good life do I really deserve?.” He brings up that argument that the contest of life is “rigged from the start” (Arora). How do one fix the contest so it's fair for everyone? Society can start by leveling the playing field to give everyone an equal chance, eliminating the idea of winner vs. loser, and encouraging and rewarding hard work and natural talents. Once the system is repaired, then we will see that those who make the effort and take advantage of their own gifts will succeed and be truly deserving of their earnings.
Certainly, being born into a privileged family have their advantages. Unfortunately, for those who are born into poverty may struggle for their success, but it is not impossible. The podcast “Three Miles” is a great example of that. Comparatively, on the surface Melanie and Raquel are two individuals coming from the same unfortunate circumstances. Although, both girls were introduced to the same pen pal program their outcomes would travel different courses. Initially, the purpose of this program is to give students from poor neighborhoods a glimpse inside their wealthier counterpart’s lives, from another school. Raquel and Melanie’s backgrounds were similar, because they were afforded the same opportunities, but they turned out differently. Raquel was driven while Melanie is unambitious.
Growing up in a more privileged environment things may come easier to one. But one should not be surprised of those that are in a less fortunate situation that are not able to reach certain heights, compared to someone from a more privileged back ground. Even if one is not in the best environment, they are able to make a choice to keep fighting for a better life. In the podcast “Three Miles” that is exactly the attitude described from a girl name Raquel, on the other hand Melanie froze her life doing what she thought she deserved. Though Raquel and Melanie had similar backgrounds in that they were raised in the same poor neighborhood and attended the same indigent high school, in the end Raquel was able to succeed in her life after getting denied a Posse scholarship, whereas Melanie worked in a supermarket for ten years, feeling that was as good as it was going to get.
In the treatise named “Leviathan” published in 1651, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) proposed an early variant of equality among men that inequality did not exist in natural condition, meaning everyone is born equal; however, inequality's existence was the result of civil laws (Hobbes & Gaskin, 1998). In this sense, inequality is generally referred to social inequality which is characterized by the existence of unequal opportunities and rewards for different social positions or statuses within a group or society; plus, this negative social phenomenon contains structured and recurrent patterns of unequal distributions of goods, wealth, opportunities, rewards, and punishments (Crossman, 2012).
In this world we are constantly being categorized by our race and ethnicity, and for many people it’s hard to look beyond that. Even though in the past many stood up for equality and to stop racism and discrimination, it still occurs. In this nation of freedom and equality, there are still many people who believe that their race is superior to others. These beliefs are the ones that destroy our nation and affect the lives of many. The people affected are not limited by their age group, sex, social status, or by their education level.
People from lower classes try to achieve success but tend to struggle depending upon their foundation. The problem that people don’t want see is that we all want to become successful, and have the capability to do so but are just restricted by the lack of income.
Meritocracy, unlike aristocracy, is the system in which talented people are rewarded and promoted to leadership positions based on their merit. According to James Whitehurst, meritocracy “now refers to organizations where the best people and ideas win.” However, as true as it may sound, meritocracy in America is still a myth and is not a certainty. In the article “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Backpack,” McIntosh’s disdain of meritocracy when she described as “I must give up the myth of meritocracy.” She mentioned the meritocracy myth because in reality, many people who lack talents and experience can still climb the upward mobility ladder and become wealthier while the rest of
Lastly, William Graham Sumner claimed that social inequality is the direct result of men attempting to make their own way in society. “Rights should be equal, because they pertain to chances, and all ought to have equal chances so far as chances are provided or limited by the action of society.” 2 Here he contrasts rights to chances, claiming that rights do not assure success, but only a chance to be
It is clear that Inequality of Opportunity and Inequality of Income intersect, but the main difference between these types of inequality can be explained as follows: Income Inequality depends on the efforts of a person, his or her work, while Inequality of Opportunity depends on external circumstances that a person can not influence (Molinas). At present, two approaches to Inequality of Opportunity are distinguished. One of them is called meritocratic and believes that people who make the same choice and apply the same effort should receive the same feedback (Molinas). The second one is called egalitarian, and its main idea is that outcomes should not depend on indicators and be equal (Molinas). Roemer actively developed this theory (Molinas). According to the scientist, there is no possibility to be sure that certain decisions made by a person were a consequence solely of her or his efforts, and not a consequence of errors and inequalities in the system. Following precisely this type of Inequality of Opportunity, one can expect that the respondents feel inequality in access and quality to education, the medical sphere, the labor market, living
Distributive Property or distributive justice is the economic framework of a society that asserts the rightful allocations of property among its citizens. Due to the limited amount of resources that is provided in a society, the question of proper distribution often occurs. The ideal answer is that public assets should be reasonably dispersed so that every individual receives what constitutes as a “justified share”; here is where the conflict arises. The notion of just distribution, however, is generally disagreed upon as is the case with Robert Nozick and John Rawls. These men have different takes on how property should be justly distributed. Nozick claims that any sort of patterned distribution of wealth is inequitable and that this ultimately reduces individual liberty. Rawls on the other hand, prioritizes equality over a diverse group where the distribution of assets among a community should be in the favor of the least advantaged. The immediate difference between the two is that both men have separate ideas on the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of resources; however I intend to defend Nozick’s theory by pointing out significant weaknesses in Rawls’s proposition.
Money can give people a lot opportunities and privilege. Financially privileged people have no trouble getting materialistic things such as big houses, expensive cars, and jewelry. Being privileged can also provide better scholastic education as well as respect. On the other hand, a lack of money, as a person might guess, limits opportunity and lower a person’s status on the privilege pole. In order for an underprivileged person to have all of those things, they have to work hard to get to get the luxuries of nice houses, cars, and jewelry. As far as education goes, the underprivileged might not go to the best schools but they get an education that will prove to be more valuable in life; they learn to earn respect, appreciate what they have and how to survive with just the necessities and what’s really important in life. So when a person looks at each group and tries to decided with one gets the most out of life, they will see that underprivileged individuals get so much more out of life than a person who came up in affluence and privilege.