Introduction
In performing organizations around the world, it is common practice for their Human Resource Departments to recruit employees based on merit. In the society that we are part of, hard work is forever valued and cherished. People are always judged according to their merits and demerits. In the world, some people are endowed with abilities and interests that enable them to perform some activities and jobs more than others. But society is always at a loss to explain in what sense do such exemplary abilities and interests constitute a basis for asserting that their holders merit the job more than those who lack such abilities (Hospers, 1995). As such, it is only imperative that we take a look at the basis of merit and why we value it as a society.
Main body
According to Pojman and Mclead (1999), merit is any quality and feature that forms the basis for allocating positive attribution such as rewards, praises, and prizes. Top-performing employees in progressive organizations are always rewarded with fat paycheques. According to Pojman, we should always strive to form a world in which the virtuous are rewarded and the vicious punished. The reward or punishment should be in direct proportion to the direct deserts. I personally concur with Pojman’s assertion that individuals should be rewarded or punished based on their merits. A hardworking and enterprising employee deserves to be put in a better remunerating position than one who always reports working late. As Pojman rightly puts it, those who work harder than anyone else deserve to be proclaimed the winners.
But having agreed on Pojman’s assertions that the virtuous should always be rewarded and the vicious punished, innate and environmental concerns should be looked into to make sure that some people in society are not unnecessarily punished. Do we hold the basis of punishing an individual who can’t secure a job basically because he comes from a poor family and rewards an individual who can get any job that he needs basically because he comes from a rich family? Being brought up in a rich family can make someone possess some special interests and abilities needed for the superior performance of a job of considerable prestige and social importance. As the old adage goes, money can buy anything. But can such a person have a justifiable claim to superior rewards for the job than a person who comes from a poor family? In as much as we value merit, this should never be allowed to happen as it is morally wrong and socially unjustifiable.
The concept of merit is deeply ingrained in our daily morality. As a society, we believe that our daily efforts should be rewarded with success, and our wrongdoings should be rewarded with punishments (Coons, 2000). I agree with these assertions in total. It is to our benefit as human beings that merit is valued as it serves as a motivating force that drives our daily experiences in life. If my friend works very hard and manages to buy for himself the latest car in the market, my desire would be for me to follow in his footsteps. Our court systems are also supported by these assertions. Those who go against the established legal provisions are bound to be punished. When these people are punished, they will be motivated to reconsider their characters and follow what society prescribes.
According to Pojman and Mclead (1999), people always deserve what they earn. A fitting response is always designed for every action that we engage in while we are in this universe. In the same vein, good deeds are always followed by good outcomes and evil deeds by evil outcomes. I totally agree with these assertions. But my worry is that some people may benefit more than others owing to various birthright predispositions, intelligence, environmental factors, and their levels of social standing. For example, people who are born with mental deficiencies are looked down on by society. Even when they perform a good act, it is always looked upon as evil. But is it really out of their making that they find themselves in such situations? In the eyes of society, such people lack merit and are always negatively rewarded even when their actions demand a positive reward. This should never be the case.
According to Sydney (2002), merit theorists believe that it is only just that we get what we deserve. Therefore, failure to receive what we deserve is unjustified. It is also good that individuals get what they deserve and bad if such individuals don’t get what they deserve. If someone deserves something bad, like punishment, he or she must get it. In such a scenario, it is unjustifiable not to punish such a person. This theory, therefore, leaves no room for certain religious convictions such as Christianity’s repentance and forgiveness. According to Christianity belief, individuals should always be ready to forgive their wrongdoers, no matter the intensity of the wrongdoing. But according to Pojman and Mclead (1999), people always deserve what they earn. The vicious should not in any way be accorded forgiveness. It can be effectively argued that Pojman’s arguments about merit go against some religious convictions. On this account, they cannot be used favorably by Christians despite their concerted effort to make people value merit.
According to Coons (2000), individuals commonly believe that some states of affairs are good or better than others. On the same premise, we also believe that some individuals have more value than others. In our daily endeavors, we knowingly or unknowingly perceive that some individuals are valuable and merit our respect and concern more than others. But is it morally right to treat some people as more valuable than others based on our perceptions? The Christian and Islamic teachings are of the view that all men are equal before the eyes of God. In the same vein, our supreme constitutions entrench the notion of equality of man under the supreme laws governing nations. The way we perceive people during our daily experiences has a bearing on how they are rewarded. Though the idea of rewarding the virtuous and punishing the vicious is fine with me, it is bound to be abused by individuals who classify other individuals based on their personal perceptions. For example, a teacher can dislike a student basically because that student is not well endowed intellectually. Does such a teacher have any moral rightness to punish such a student? Plainly put, I don’t think that the teacher reserves the right to punish the student because of his intellectual incapability. Also, the teacher does not have any moral ground to claim that such a student is of less value than other students who are brighter than him.
Conclusion
According to Pojman and Mclead (1999), giving every man his dues forms the basis of justice. People should always live virtuously, taking care not to harm others, and letting everyone have his or her dues. This forms the basis of establishing a viable state where everybody respects everybody else’s. I can’t agree more with these assertions. But the problems to them are experienced when it comes to their applications. Look at the differences between countries! Does the United States give Iraq its rightful dues? Does Israel respect Palestine? The answer to these questions is no. We have failed as nations to live virtuously. Today, instead of nations taking care not to harm others, they are doing the opposite. As meritocracy is hierarchical, some countries have designated for themselves roles of policing other nations. This has brought more confusion and anarchy in the world today than it has brought peace. Therefore, I can only say that though Pojman’s arguments are good, they continue to be applied wrongly in the world today.
References
Clinton, P.C. (1980). Human conduct: A textbook in general philosophy and applied psychology for students in High schools, Academies, Junior colleges, and for the general reader. The Macmillan Company Coons, C. (2000). The value of individuals and the value of states. Bowling Green State University. 2008. Web.
Hospers, J. (1995). Human conduct: Problems of ethics. Wadsworth publishing. ISBN 0155019597.
Pojman, L.P. (1999). What do we deserve? Oxford University Press US. 2008. Web.
Sydney, H. (2002). Philosophy East and West, Vol. 9, no 1-2, pp 6-9. Preliminary report on third East-West Philosophers’ conference.