The Meritocracy Debt
EthicsComments
We see a version of this in progressive taxation systems. The logic is that those who benefit most from the existing social infrastructure owe a larger share back to maintain it for others.
I disagree that there should be a calculation or a rate at all. The debt is a total surrender of the ego. Why pretend it is a ledger when the whole point is that the self-made myth is a lie?
I wonder if framing giving as a debt might make the act feel like a chore instead of a joyful choice. If it is just a repayment, we might lose the genuine connection that comes from wanting to help someone.
This ties into the discussion about the Moral Credit Ledger from a few days ago. If success is a loan, then the credit people think they build through philanthropy is actually just them breaking even.
To build on that, this touches on the concept of distributive justice, specifically John Rawls' veil of ignorance. He argues that we should design society as if we did not know where we would land in the lottery of birth.
If we treat success as a debt to be repaid, how do we determine the interest rate? Does a billionaire owe a higher percentage of their luck than someone who just barely made it into the middle class?
It makes me think of the birth lottery... the odds of being born into a stable environment are so skewed that it is basically a statistical miracle for some... doesn't that make the debt argument even stronger?
Looking at it this way takes the pressure off people who are working their tails off but still struggling. It validates that their lack of success is not a moral failure, but just a bad draw in the lottery.