How East Meets West: Justice and Consequences in Confucian Meritocracy
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
“Meritocracy” has historically been understood in two ways. The first is as an approach to governance. On this understanding, we seek to put meritorious (somehow defined) people into public office for the benefit of society. This understanding has its roots in Confucius, its scope is political offices, and its justification is consequentialist. The second understanding of “meritocracy” is as a theory of justice. We distribute in accordance with merit in order to give people the things that they deserve, as justice demands. This understanding has its roots in Aristotle, its scope is social goods broadly, and its justification is deontological. In this article, I discuss the differences—especially the conceptual differences—between these two, prima facie distinct, meritocratic traditions. I also argue that despite their differences, Eastern Meritocracy and Western Meritocracy are harmonious. In Section I of the article, I introduce the two meritocratic traditions through, in part, a highly abbreviated history of talk about “merit” and “meritocracy” in Chinese and Western philosophy. In Section II, I discuss a number of conceptual issues and partition meritocratic theories in accordance with their scopes and normative justifications. I also discuss two scenarios. In one scenario, Eastern Meritocracy appears to deliver the right result and Western Meritocracy, the wrong result. In the other scenario, vice versa. Finally, in Section III, I argue that Eastern Meritocracy and Western Meritocracy are each special cases of a single, compelling notion of “meritocracy.”
Abstract
“Meritocracy” has historically been understood in two ways. The first is as an approach to governance. On this understanding, we seek to put meritorious (somehow defined) people into public office for the benefit of society. This understanding has its roots in Confucius, its scope is political offices, and its justification is consequentialist. The second understanding of “meritocracy” is as a theory of justice. We distribute in accordance with merit in order to give people the things that they deserve, as justice demands. This understanding has its roots in Aristotle, its scope is social goods broadly, and its justification is deontological. In this article, I discuss the differences—especially the conceptual differences—between these two, prima facie distinct, meritocratic traditions. I also argue that despite their differences, Eastern Meritocracy and Western Meritocracy are harmonious. In Section I of the article, I introduce the two meritocratic traditions through, in part, a highly abbreviated history of talk about “merit” and “meritocracy” in Chinese and Western philosophy. In Section II, I discuss a number of conceptual issues and partition meritocratic theories in accordance with their scopes and normative justifications. I also discuss two scenarios. In one scenario, Eastern Meritocracy appears to deliver the right result and Western Meritocracy, the wrong result. In the other scenario, vice versa. Finally, in Section III, I argue that Eastern Meritocracy and Western Meritocracy are each special cases of a single, compelling notion of “meritocracy.”
참고문헌 (44)
- Alexander, Larry, "What Makes Wrongful Discrimination Wrong? Biases, Preferences, Stereotypes, and Proxies", University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 141(1), pp.149~219 (1992)
- Aristotle, "Nicomachean Ethics" (1908), Clarendon Press
- Bai, Tongdong, "Against Political Equality: The Confucian Case" (2020), Princeton University Press
- Becker, Gary S, "The Economics of Discrimination" (1957), University of Chicago Press
- Bell, Daniel A., "The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy" (2015), Princeton University Press
- Bénabou, Roland, "Meritocracy and Economic Inequality, edited by Kenneth Arrow, Samuel Bowles, and Steven Durlauf", pp.317~339 (2000), Princeton University Press
- Brennan, Jason, "The Right to a Competent Electorate", The Philosophical Quarterly, 61(245), pp.700~724 (2011)
- Brennan, Jason, "Against Democracy" (2016), Princeton University Press
- Chan, Joseph, "Confucian Perfectionism: A Political Philosophy for Modern Times" (2014), Princeton University Press
- Daniels, Norman, "Merit and Meritocracy", Philosophy and Public Affairs, 7(3), pp.206~223 (1978)
- Dobos, Ned, "The Duty to Hire on Merit: Mapping the Terrain", Journal of Value Inquiry, 50(2), pp.353~368 (2016)
- Dwyer, Joseph de la Torre, "Chance, Merit, and Economic Inequality: Rethinking Distributive Justice and the Principle of Desert" (2020), Palgrave Macmillan
- Elman, Benjamin, A., "Cultural History of Civil Examinations in Late Imperial China" (2000), University of California Press
- Elman, Benjamin, A., "Civil Examinations and Meritocracy in Late Imperial China" (2013), Harvard University Press
- Estlund, David, "Desire, Identity, and Existence", pp.53~69 (2003), Academic Printing and Publishing
- Feldman, Fred, "Distributive Justice: Getting What We Deserve from Our Country" (2016), Oxford University Press
- Frankfurt, Harry, "Equality as a Moral Ideal", Ethics, 98(1), pp.21~43 (1987)
- "Mohism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition)" (2020)[URL]
- Huang, Yong, "Why an Upright Son Does Not Disclose His Father Stealing a Sheep: A Neglected Aspect of the Confucian Conception of Filial Piety", Asian Studies, 5(1), pp.15~45 (2017)
- Jin, Yutang, "Classic Confucian Thought and Political Meritocracy: A Text-based Critique", Dao, 20(3), pp.433~458 (2021)
- Keyt, David, "A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics", pp.238~278 (1991), Blackwell
- Konow, James, "Fair and Square: The Four Sides of Distributive Justice", Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 46(2), pp.137~164 (2001)
- Legge, James, "Containing Confucian Analects, the Great Learning, and the Doctrine of the Mean" (1861), Legge
- Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper, "Reaction Qualifications Revisited", Social Theory and Practice, 35(3), pp.413~439 (2009)
- Mencken, H. L., "A Little Book in C Major" (1916), John Lane
- Mill, John Stuart., "Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform" (1859), John W. Parker and Son
- Mill, John Stuart, "Utilitarianism", Fraser’s Magazine, 64, pp.391~406 (1861)[DOI]
- Miller, David, "Two Cheers for Meritocracy", Journal of Political Philosophy, 4(4), pp.277~301 (1996)
- Miller, David, "Principles of Social Justice" (1999), Harvard University Press
- Moore, George Edward, "Principia Ethica" (1903), Cambridge University Press
- Mulligan, Thomas, "Justice and the Meritocratic State" (2018), Routledge
- Mulligan, Thomas, "On Merit", ~
- Qing, Jiang, "A Confucian Constitutional Order: How China’s Past Can Shape Its Political Future" (2013), Princeton University Press
- Plato, "The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Including the Letters" (1961), Princeton University Press
- Plato, "The Laws of Plato" (1980), Basic Books
- Pojman, Louis, "Equality and Desert", Philosophy, 72(282), pp.549~570 (1997)
- Rawls, John, "A Theory of Justice" (1971), Belknap Press
- Ross, W. D., "The Right and the Good" (1930), Clarendon Press
- Schmditz, David, "Elements of Justice" (2006), Cambridge University Press
- Sher, George, "Desert" (1987), Princeton University Press
- Swift, Adam, "Meritocratic Equality of Opportunity:Economic Efficiency, Social Justice, or Both?", Policy Studies, 18(1), pp.35~48 (1997)
- Waldron, Jeremy, "The Wisdom of the Multitude: Some Reflections on Book 3, Chapter 11 of Aristotle’s Politics", Political Theory, 23(4), pp.563~584 (1995)
- Walzer, Michael, "Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality" (1983), Basic Books
- Wertheimer, Alan, "Jobs, Qualifications, and Preferences", Ethics, 94(1), pp.99~112 (1983)