Rights are a human construct that are formed by human institutions and the society that create them. John Stuart Mill and his brand of Utilitarianism is mostly a dead philosophy. Certain flavors of Utilitarianism still exist among certain English* philosophers like Peter Singer. Continental philosophy has moved on and takes a similar position as one described in my first sentence. Honestly the idea that there exists a moral calculus which one can base their moral decisions on just seems very naive to me.
A "sheep" is a person who does not think about the issues at hand. It really has nothing to do with caring. Except perhaps caring about thinking. And a sheep is a person who does not care about thinking.
It's not like the majority of the problems in the world are inherently complex. The solutions to the problems may indeed be complex to enact but restating the problem and understanding the problem is not. A person who spends at most 30 minutes of their day reading the news from a variety of sources will be informed enough to understand the majority of the world's problems. Not only that but spending an additional 10 minutes evaluating what they read will supply a person with enough information to participate in an informed discussion.
See a "sheep" will never take part in any of those activities. Because they would rather let someone else do the thinking for them. That is the definition of a sheep. If perhaps you do not care about a particular issue because you have evaluated it yourself and could come with an argument for not caring about said issue; you are not a sheep. But if you are not even willing to inform yourself in order to make such a decision and instead allow others to make the decisions for you. You are a sheep.
Moral relativism is the belief that there exists no universal moral truths. That morality is something that is derived from a society and its social institutions. There is no universal moral code. Compare this with Plato who believes that there does exist universal moral truths (what is justice?) independent of human existence.
If you are interested in learning more I suggest picking up Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil".
Do humans have free will or is it an illusion? You appear to have an answer however a deeper investigation will yield that the question is a lot harder than you think. One could spend their whole lives working on this question and never come up with a sufficient answer.
Anyway as someone who does not take such problems lightly I am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. Also that the true answer is most likely somewhere in the middle. We have choice but our choices are severely limited and that our own conscious awareness is only part of a larger mechanism that is the "decision" process. Therefore I could never subscribe to the philosophy that the individual is to blame for all their problems.
Yes there still exists personal responsibility but also there exists the ability to forgive and understand. And given similar "initial conditions" I myself could be in the same difficult position.
It's interesting you don't cite the actual paper relevant to this discussion. A paper that is filled with cautionary language about the conclusion. The authors even admit there is very little "hard evidence" that television viewing among small children has greatly risen in recent years (the antecedent of their argument).
I agree however that more research is warranted. Yet until there is "slum dunk" evidence to prove their claims, it should be given little credence.
Saying "I could care less" means "there is no limit on how less I care but rather a limit on the effort I put into not caring". For us Americans we don't challenge each other on the limit of not caring (which is a bottomless pit) but on how much effort is put into not caring (because we are so lazy, effort is more valuable).
You couldn't care less? Well I surely could but it's not worth the effort.
There is nothing explicit in Wikipedia's policies that would prohibit such an article. The only thing that has changed is the trends in Wikipedia admins and how they interpret the policies. The article itself has lasted 4 years with just one AfD (which was recent with the consensus of keep). It just strikes me as "dubious" because it has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies or the article itself but personal opinion.
Slashdot's moderation system is a form of censorship
Censorship is the removal of material. Moderated comments are never removed but "removed from view" depending on your personal settings. However the comments are still there.
YouTube users can flag any video as containing pornography, mature content or graphic violence, depicting illegal acts or being racially or ethnically offensive. A video is removed -- as Ms. Malkin's was on Sept. 28 -- only if a review by the company's customer support department agrees that it is inappropriate, or that the video is on its face in violation of the site's terms of use.
The video is up and no longer flagged. A video becomes flagged when enough users mark it and then a YouTube employee will either verify it should be removed/flagged. In this case they removed the initial flag and kept the video.
Slashdot trolling phenomena is up for deletion for dubious reasons. For those of us that have been around/. for a long time, it is hard to separate Slashdot's infamous trolling past from Slashdot itself. And also this type of article is what makes Wikipedia great. It's just in-depth secondary knowledge about an online community that would be excluded from a paper encyclopedia.
However several wikipedians believe that the information is not notable or such claims are unverifiable. When it's obvious that the source is Slashdot itself which keeps a written oral history. It would be silly to delete an article about Beowulf* because the sources are dubious or self-referential.
Anyway this just highlights one of the problems of the Wikipedia community. They have self-knighted themselves to be the guardians of knowledge. Anything that does not fit their worldview of what is "Wikiesque" will be removed. The official Wikipedia policies are malleable and can be interpreted to fit their conclusions. It reminds me of what happened in Bolshevik Russia; whatever does not fit the Party line does not exist.
*Yeah I know it's silly to compare Beowulf to the hot grits guy but you get the point.
First off it should be noted that the majority of victims in Darfur are Muslim and this is a case of Arab vs. African violence.
The US doesn't want to send troops because their soldiers would just end up becoming the targets. So instead of pacifying the situation it would only become worse (see Somalia 1993). The UN had promised 20,000 troops in the area but Sudan openly objected and declared that such a force would be seen as invaders. The UN then backed down with the hope the AU would increase its forces and extend its stay.
As far as your argument that the "Left" would appear as hypocrites for a supporting an excursion into Darfur because they opposed the invasion of Iraq, I don't understand your line of thought. Darfur and Iraq appear to be two very different situations.
This is apparently related to the hatespeak-related jailing we discussed on Saturday.
Jesse James != Anthony Walker. The only way they are related is that both murder victims are black.
Other than the obvious and regrettably tragedy of the situation, why is this case noteworthy?
What did Stalin say, "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic"? So how this particular case different than the thousands of others who die regularly? I dont know but that sure is a shitty way to look at the world.
I don't think we really see it that differently in Europe. It's just that where these rights conflict, like here Freedom of Speech and Human Dignity or the Right to Live, the priorities are different in some rare cases ("Hate Speech" really is the only one I can think of).
Yeah but I highly doubt many Europeans believe such rights are immutable. Certainly in the US our courts decide in a pragmatic way how to solve issues where rights conflict. However at the same time these rights are in some sense our natural rights. We are giving up some rights for the sake of society and security. And for some they feel they are stripped away of such rights unfairly.
From an outside perspective, it seems there are parts of US society which have a huge influence on what must be considered, if not illegal, then at least political or commercial suicide.
Yes from the eyes of a European but to a typical American it is more seen along the lines of good vs evil. There is no room for debate.
In American politics it is a different philosophy, rights come from nature (or God). In Europe rights come from social institutions and society.
What a society deems acceptable, or what it considers an individual's fundamental right, is based on it's culture and historic experience.
You have to understand that this concept is very hard for Americans to wrap their head around. Americans tend to think in absolutes. It stems from our deeply religious past but also that our founding fathers believed in "natural rights"; there are certain "inalienable" rights that exist independent of our human institutions. This belief motivated the framers of our Constitution to codify these rights in the Bill of Rights.
So when you say something like "well it's up to society to determine what are rights and what should be prohibited" simply does not compute to most Americans. Our rights are our rights by some "divine right" and not to be determined by the whims of society.
Damn I pressed the submit button by mistake. Specifically I was talking about May 1999 in Kandahar, you can read that specific part, here, it's near the bottom of the page.
Don't forget that Bill Clinton had several opportunities to capture or kill Bin Laden - he declined to do so, because he thought it would look bad politically.
No he didn't. Read the 911 commission report. There was one possible attempt in 1999 but was called off over intelligence disputes.
The President does not have the right to bypass or enact legislation. The debate is not over warrantless wiretaps but rather if the President is able to effectively nullify laws (FISA) during wartime.
Except of course stable social institutions that allow business to flourish. I'd like to see the private sector maintain itself without the rule of law and a police force to enforce the law. Not only that but a monetary institution that allows fair commerce. If anything it is private industry that benefits the most from government.
Yeah? And is this just something "everybody knows," or do you have any actual, you know, facts and statistical evidence to support the proposition?
There is a wide variety of literature and studies on this subject. I suggest you look into it.
As far as the rest of your argument; my overall point which I keep reiterating is that in order to have a more self-actualized society we need a level playing field. There is no way to determine preemptively in the development stage who is going to be a success. Rather we should just equally invest in everyone until a certain age. Then let society decide who is to be rewarded and who is be penalized. I have no problem with an unequal society where some have more than others. This is only type of society that is achievable with economic scarcity. However at least give everyone an equal chance to fulfill their potential.
The OP failed to recognize that he was basically asserting a reorganization of class structure based on intelligence. Where intelligence would be a means to determine success and therefore those who are more intelligent should receive more resources. Perhaps he meant beyond the college level; however who is the OP to decide what society's priorities should be? This should be in agreement with your statement "But whether a man is successful in making a useful contribution to his society -- yeah, 'society' determines that. As it damn well should."
The deeper philosophical argument is that society creates institutions that are biased. These institutions favor certain types of people. We create this idea of "material success" to validate the social institutions that are in place. However there is no real independent value of "material success" but is subject to the very same biased institutions. Therefore in order to create a society that gives everyone an equal chance to pursue their individuality, we should try to compensate for our own biased institutions.
In that case, you're not saying anything different than the OP, not even saying things should be materially different than they are.
Class is very important in what levels of access a person may have, the same thing with race and gender. To claim there are equal levels of access to resources in our current society is just flat out wrong. The OP was just changing the classes to different categories.
From OP: "And if push comes to shove, I know where I'd put money to make sure we still have money in the future. Any business person knows it. You invest in the "low-hanging fruit", the "easy mark", the people who are poised to succeed."
First there is no effective method to determine "who is poised to succeed"* which was my first point. Secondly "success" is a measure determined by society, it's not something independent of human experience. Once again you are just reinforcing the class structure created by biased human institutions. If anything this position is no different than the way things are now.
Been reading a lot of Sartre, have we?
No.
Who's talking about general measures of 'human worth'? That's a straw man. I think we're talking about ability in specific types of effort -- for example the ability to learn chemistry and physics -- and there are plenty of reliable and objective metrics for that... And why would the fact that we can't in those areas prevent us from ranking people in other areas, e.g. their abilities in math, science, in speaking foreign languages, in repairing cars or in growing crops?
I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with removing the current class structure for a new one that is different only in categorical importance.
*You can statisically determine who is more "poised to succeed" by what college a person graduates from and their race, class and gender. But that only reflects the current biases in society. Also these people are already being invested in.
I'm not making ad hominem attacks; I was making statement about the position you hold which I inferred from the words you typed.
I have not said what kind of society I would rather have, I have said what kind of society I think is achievable, and what the consequences of not seeking an achievable society might be.
Well it seems you rather have a successful society determined by your own metric. I'm not sure what that exactly is though.
However, those with the skills to succeed should be the ones focused upon.
Same thing, what is success?
I'm quite open to suggestions about how to do this in a way that accommodates diversity of participation, but not in a way that leads to our nation going bankrupt because of failure to distinguish needs from wishes and failure to do things in the right order.
What's the right order?
My basic belief is because there is no real way to determine universally "how much a person is worth" we shouldn't make judgments on what paths an individual may take is optimal for society as a whole. Allow individuals to make their choices on what they wish to do with their life. At the same time allow for equal resources to pursue their own goals.
However as far as "reward" for "a level of success" should be left to society as a whole to determine what is more important. If they want to reward athletes more than intellectuals, then so be it. If they want to reward scientists more than TV personalities, that is fine as well. Again there is no way to determine on an independent scale what is better since any such metric is dependent on the society.
From what I gather you believe there is some sort of independent scale of material worth. Therefore society in order to be competitive should reward and focus on those who will maintain this level of success. This is essentially social engineering. You may not think it is because you actually believe that there is an "independent scale of material worth". And you believe you are only making society better. However it is only your own personal belief of "intrinsic value" and has no existence in independent reality.
If I have mischaracterized your position then I apologize. But you must at least admit there are contradictions in your claims.
There is a difference between saying "everyone should have access to equal resources" and "everyone is created equal". The former does not imply the latter however the latter may imply the former. I said "everyone should have access to equal resources" which does not imply "everyone is created equal". Rather because of biased social institutions some of those who are "more equal than others" are left behind and some who are "less equal" are promoted.
We should allow everyone to succeed on their own merits. As far as who should be rewarded more, it is not something one person can determine. It is up to society as a whole to decide what is more important to them. But note there is no universal metric for "human worth" but only a construct created by societies and their institutions.
Slashdot Mirror
Rights are a human construct that are formed by human institutions and the society that create them. John Stuart Mill and his brand of Utilitarianism is mostly a dead philosophy. Certain flavors of Utilitarianism still exist among certain English* philosophers like Peter Singer. Continental philosophy has moved on and takes a similar position as one described in my first sentence. Honestly the idea that there exists a moral calculus which one can base their moral decisions on just seems very naive to me.
*English as in born in the UK, USA or Australia.
A "sheep" is a person who does not think about the issues at hand. It really has nothing to do with caring. Except perhaps caring about thinking. And a sheep is a person who does not care about thinking.
It's not like the majority of the problems in the world are inherently complex. The solutions to the problems may indeed be complex to enact but restating the problem and understanding the problem is not. A person who spends at most 30 minutes of their day reading the news from a variety of sources will be informed enough to understand the majority of the world's problems. Not only that but spending an additional 10 minutes evaluating what they read will supply a person with enough information to participate in an informed discussion.
See a "sheep" will never take part in any of those activities. Because they would rather let someone else do the thinking for them. That is the definition of a sheep. If perhaps you do not care about a particular issue because you have evaluated it yourself and could come with an argument for not caring about said issue; you are not a sheep. But if you are not even willing to inform yourself in order to make such a decision and instead allow others to make the decisions for you. You are a sheep.
Moral relativism is the belief that there exists no universal moral truths. That morality is something that is derived from a society and its social institutions. There is no universal moral code. Compare this with Plato who believes that there does exist universal moral truths (what is justice?) independent of human existence.
If you are interested in learning more I suggest picking up Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil".
You forget that humanity's biggest enemy is not nature but humanity itself.
Do humans have free will or is it an illusion? You appear to have an answer however a deeper investigation will yield that the question is a lot harder than you think. One could spend their whole lives working on this question and never come up with a sufficient answer.
Anyway as someone who does not take such problems lightly I am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. Also that the true answer is most likely somewhere in the middle. We have choice but our choices are severely limited and that our own conscious awareness is only part of a larger mechanism that is the "decision" process. Therefore I could never subscribe to the philosophy that the individual is to blame for all their problems.
Yes there still exists personal responsibility but also there exists the ability to forgive and understand. And given similar "initial conditions" I myself could be in the same difficult position.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
It's interesting you don't cite the actual paper relevant to this discussion. A paper that is filled with cautionary language about the conclusion. The authors even admit there is very little "hard evidence" that television viewing among small children has greatly risen in recent years (the antecedent of their argument).
I agree however that more research is warranted. Yet until there is "slum dunk" evidence to prove their claims, it should be given little credence.
Saying "I could care less" means "there is no limit on how less I care but rather a limit on the effort I put into not caring". For us Americans we don't challenge each other on the limit of not caring (which is a bottomless pit) but on how much effort is put into not caring (because we are so lazy, effort is more valuable).
You couldn't care less? Well I surely could but it's not worth the effort.
There is nothing explicit in Wikipedia's policies that would prohibit such an article. The only thing that has changed is the trends in Wikipedia admins and how they interpret the policies. The article itself has lasted 4 years with just one AfD (which was recent with the consensus of keep). It just strikes me as "dubious" because it has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies or the article itself but personal opinion.
Slashdot's moderation system is a form of censorship
Censorship is the removal of material. Moderated comments are never removed but "removed from view" depending on your personal settings. However the comments are still there.
YouTube users can flag any video as containing pornography, mature content or graphic violence, depicting illegal acts or being racially or ethnically offensive. A video is removed -- as Ms. Malkin's was on Sept. 28 -- only if a review by the company's customer support department agrees that it is inappropriate, or that the video is on its face in violation of the site's terms of use.
NYTimes - "A Slippery Slope of Censorship at YouTube"
The video is up and no longer flagged. A video becomes flagged when enough users mark it and then a YouTube employee will either verify it should be removed/flagged. In this case they removed the initial flag and kept the video.
Slashdot trolling phenomena is up for deletion for dubious reasons. For those of us that have been around /. for a long time, it is hard to separate Slashdot's infamous trolling past from Slashdot itself. And also this type of article is what makes Wikipedia great. It's just in-depth secondary knowledge about an online community that would be excluded from a paper encyclopedia.
However several wikipedians believe that the information is not notable or such claims are unverifiable. When it's obvious that the source is Slashdot itself which keeps a written oral history. It would be silly to delete an article about Beowulf* because the sources are dubious or self-referential.
Anyway this just highlights one of the problems of the Wikipedia community. They have self-knighted themselves to be the guardians of knowledge. Anything that does not fit their worldview of what is "Wikiesque" will be removed. The official Wikipedia policies are malleable and can be interpreted to fit their conclusions. It reminds me of what happened in Bolshevik Russia; whatever does not fit the Party line does not exist.
*Yeah I know it's silly to compare Beowulf to the hot grits guy but you get the point.
First off it should be noted that the majority of victims in Darfur are Muslim and this is a case of Arab vs. African violence.
The US doesn't want to send troops because their soldiers would just end up becoming the targets. So instead of pacifying the situation it would only become worse (see Somalia 1993). The UN had promised 20,000 troops in the area but Sudan openly objected and declared that such a force would be seen as invaders. The UN then backed down with the hope the AU would increase its forces and extend its stay.
As far as your argument that the "Left" would appear as hypocrites for a supporting an excursion into Darfur because they opposed the invasion of Iraq, I don't understand your line of thought. Darfur and Iraq appear to be two very different situations.
This is apparently related to the hatespeak-related jailing we discussed on Saturday.
Jesse James != Anthony Walker. The only way they are related is that both murder victims are black.
Other than the obvious and regrettably tragedy of the situation, why is this case noteworthy?
What did Stalin say, "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic"? So how this particular case different than the thousands of others who die regularly? I dont know but that sure is a shitty way to look at the world.
I don't think we really see it that differently in Europe. It's just that where these rights conflict, like here Freedom of Speech and Human Dignity or the Right to Live, the priorities are different in some rare cases ("Hate Speech" really is the only one I can think of).
Yeah but I highly doubt many Europeans believe such rights are immutable. Certainly in the US our courts decide in a pragmatic way how to solve issues where rights conflict. However at the same time these rights are in some sense our natural rights. We are giving up some rights for the sake of society and security. And for some they feel they are stripped away of such rights unfairly.
From an outside perspective, it seems there are parts of US society which have a huge influence on what must be considered, if not illegal, then at least political or commercial suicide.
Yes from the eyes of a European but to a typical American it is more seen along the lines of good vs evil. There is no room for debate.
In American politics it is a different philosophy, rights come from nature (or God). In Europe rights come from social institutions and society.
What a society deems acceptable, or what it considers an individual's fundamental right, is based on it's culture and historic experience.
You have to understand that this concept is very hard for Americans to wrap their head around. Americans tend to think in absolutes. It stems from our deeply religious past but also that our founding fathers believed in "natural rights"; there are certain "inalienable" rights that exist independent of our human institutions. This belief motivated the framers of our Constitution to codify these rights in the Bill of Rights.
So when you say something like "well it's up to society to determine what are rights and what should be prohibited" simply does not compute to most Americans. Our rights are our rights by some "divine right" and not to be determined by the whims of society.
Damn I pressed the submit button by mistake. Specifically I was talking about May 1999 in Kandahar, you can read that specific part, here, it's near the bottom of the page.
Don't forget that Bill Clinton had several opportunities to capture or kill Bin Laden - he declined to do so, because he thought it would look bad politically.
No he didn't. Read the 911 commission report. There was one possible attempt in 1999 but was called off over intelligence disputes.
The President does not have the right to bypass or enact legislation. The debate is not over warrantless wiretaps but rather if the President is able to effectively nullify laws (FISA) during wartime.
Nothing's being produced, only consumed.
Except of course stable social institutions that allow business to flourish. I'd like to see the private sector maintain itself without the rule of law and a police force to enforce the law. Not only that but a monetary institution that allows fair commerce. If anything it is private industry that benefits the most from government.
How fast does $2 Billion get used in Iraq? I'm all for efficiency, but lets have it across the board
1 week
Yeah? And is this just something "everybody knows," or do you have any actual, you know, facts and statistical evidence to support the proposition?
There is a wide variety of literature and studies on this subject. I suggest you look into it.
As far as the rest of your argument; my overall point which I keep reiterating is that in order to have a more self-actualized society we need a level playing field. There is no way to determine preemptively in the development stage who is going to be a success. Rather we should just equally invest in everyone until a certain age. Then let society decide who is to be rewarded and who is be penalized. I have no problem with an unequal society where some have more than others. This is only type of society that is achievable with economic scarcity. However at least give everyone an equal chance to fulfill their potential.
The OP failed to recognize that he was basically asserting a reorganization of class structure based on intelligence. Where intelligence would be a means to determine success and therefore those who are more intelligent should receive more resources. Perhaps he meant beyond the college level; however who is the OP to decide what society's priorities should be? This should be in agreement with your statement "But whether a man is successful in making a useful contribution to his society -- yeah, 'society' determines that. As it damn well should."
The deeper philosophical argument is that society creates institutions that are biased. These institutions favor certain types of people. We create this idea of "material success" to validate the social institutions that are in place. However there is no real independent value of "material success" but is subject to the very same biased institutions. Therefore in order to create a society that gives everyone an equal chance to pursue their individuality, we should try to compensate for our own biased institutions.
#2
In that case, you're not saying anything different than the OP, not even saying things should be materially different than they are.
Class is very important in what levels of access a person may have, the same thing with race and gender. To claim there are equal levels of access to resources in our current society is just flat out wrong. The OP was just changing the classes to different categories.
From OP: "And if push comes to shove, I know where I'd put money to make sure we still have money in the future. Any business person knows it. You invest in the "low-hanging fruit", the "easy mark", the people who are poised to succeed."
First there is no effective method to determine "who is poised to succeed"* which was my first point. Secondly "success" is a measure determined by society, it's not something independent of human experience. Once again you are just reinforcing the class structure created by biased human institutions. If anything this position is no different than the way things are now.
Been reading a lot of Sartre, have we?
No.
Who's talking about general measures of 'human worth'? That's a straw man. I think we're talking about ability in specific types of effort -- for example the ability to learn chemistry and physics -- and there are plenty of reliable and objective metrics for that... And why would the fact that we can't in those areas prevent us from ranking people in other areas, e.g. their abilities in math, science, in speaking foreign languages, in repairing cars or in growing crops?
I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with removing the current class structure for a new one that is different only in categorical importance.
*You can statisically determine who is more "poised to succeed" by what college a person graduates from and their race, class and gender. But that only reflects the current biases in society. Also these people are already being invested in.
I'm not making ad hominem attacks; I was making statement about the position you hold which I inferred from the words you typed.
I have not said what kind of society I would rather have, I have said what kind of society I think is achievable, and what the consequences of not seeking an achievable society might be.
Well it seems you rather have a successful society determined by your own metric. I'm not sure what that exactly is though.
However, those with the skills to succeed should be the ones focused upon.
Same thing, what is success?
I'm quite open to suggestions about how to do this in a way that accommodates diversity of participation, but not in a way that leads to our nation going bankrupt because of failure to distinguish needs from wishes and failure to do things in the right order.
What's the right order?
My basic belief is because there is no real way to determine universally "how much a person is worth" we shouldn't make judgments on what paths an individual may take is optimal for society as a whole. Allow individuals to make their choices on what they wish to do with their life. At the same time allow for equal resources to pursue their own goals.
However as far as "reward" for "a level of success" should be left to society as a whole to determine what is more important. If they want to reward athletes more than intellectuals, then so be it. If they want to reward scientists more than TV personalities, that is fine as well. Again there is no way to determine on an independent scale what is better since any such metric is dependent on the society.
From what I gather you believe there is some sort of independent scale of material worth. Therefore society in order to be competitive should reward and focus on those who will maintain this level of success. This is essentially social engineering. You may not think it is because you actually believe that there is an "independent scale of material worth". And you believe you are only making society better. However it is only your own personal belief of "intrinsic value" and has no existence in independent reality.
If I have mischaracterized your position then I apologize. But you must at least admit there are contradictions in your claims.
There is a difference between saying "everyone should have access to equal resources" and "everyone is created equal". The former does not imply the latter however the latter may imply the former. I said "everyone should have access to equal resources" which does not imply "everyone is created equal". Rather because of biased social institutions some of those who are "more equal than others" are left behind and some who are "less equal" are promoted.
We should allow everyone to succeed on their own merits. As far as who should be rewarded more, it is not something one person can determine. It is up to society as a whole to decide what is more important to them. But note there is no universal metric for "human worth" but only a construct created by societies and their institutions.