Adam Smith brings up the ultimate question: are the “great”
great because they worked really hard or because the world was already in their
hands? In his words: “Do the great seem insensible of the easy price at which
they may acquire the public admiration; or do they seem to imagine that to
them, as to other men, it must be the purchase either of sweat or of blood?”
(43). Smith goes on to critique the “young nobleman” and his failure to show “virtue
of any kind” that would merit his ruling over the rest of the world. He speaks
of the young nobleness awareness of how “he is observed, and how much mankind
are disposed to favour all his inclination” (44). He uses Louis XIV to
explicate the unworthiness of the ruling elite in aristocracies: “But what were
the talents and virtues by which he acquired this great reputation? […] Was it
by his extensive knowledge exquisite judgment, or by his heroic valour? It was
by none of these qualities” (44). He then goes on to say that the King’s
talents were not “much above mediocrity” and therefore appeared to have no true
merit.
He then goes on to say that if a man “ever hopes to
distinguish themselves, it must be by more important virtues” (45); he must be
above a level of mediocrity. He must “acquire superior knowledge in his
profession, and superior industry in the exercise of it” (45). Here, true
virtue lies. However, how can we square his account of the King with this idea
of meritocracy? The “great” are great because the world is predisposed to value
the great’s inclinations, not because of superior knowledge or virtue. How
different is the modern ruling elite—otherwise known as us—than King Louis XIV?
Yes, we may be “smarter” or “better” than the kid who didn’t get in to CMC, but
how much of that is about our own ability to achieve above the level of
mediocrity and how much of it is predetermined about how society is set up to
favor us? If it seems that the world is simply predisposed to favor all of our
inclinations, then do we have any virtue at all? And if not, does meritocracy
truly exist today?
Hi Becca!
ReplyDeleteI think you pose an interesting question that we should think about -- but in this case, we may be able to square meritocracy with Smith's account. Obviously I agree with you that our society today is not a meritocracy, but Smith isn't suggesting even that the King should be selected through some meritocratic system.
Smith seems more interested in stating facts that make man better suited to rule. While these may be "virtues" that society arbitrarily values, they do coincide with bona fide occupational qualifications for King. A literate king will probably do better than an illiterate one. Knowledge in war will help as well. It is interesting that Smith seems to be trying to ground these virtues in some intuition about human behavior, but how else should we ground virtues?
Virtues to me seem necessarily subjective and based on what society values -- which doesn't have to undermine their existence, but maybe should make us question how society is set up to judge them. AKA policies like education that level the playing field.
For example, Smith says, (and this is a long and winding quote so bear with me) "... it is very often the case upon those occasions which require the greatest exertions of self-command. There are some situations which bear so hard upon human nature, that the greatest degree of self-government, which can belong to so imperfect a creature as man, is not able to stifle" our own weaknesses - and basically even if we can't always control ourselves exertions of self-command are virtuous. We can see the importance of this virtue in any civilized society, because if people went around acting out, this would undermine stability. Thus we applaud people for self restraint. Apply it to a democracy, which, if it is going to function, requires people to be conscious of themselves and behave accordingly (making informed decisions and participating in civic life.) This virtue is derived from what is valuable within a society. Level the playing field? Totally. But does this undermine any conception of virtue? I'm not sure, but I don't think so.