Redefining Ability, Saving Educational Meritocracy

The Journal of Ethics 27 (3):263-283 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The meritocratic principle of educational justice maintains that it is unfair that individuals with similar ability who invest equal effort, have unequal educational prospects. In this paper I argue that the conception of ability that meritocracy assumes, namely as an innate trait, is critically flawed. Absent a coherent conception of ability, meritocracy loses its ability to morally evaluate educational practices and policies, rendering it an unworkable principle of educational justice. Replacing innate ability with an alternative conception of ability is, therefore, crucial for meritocratic educational justice. I propose incorporating an alternative conception of ability into meritocracy—as the ″current limits of student ability″. The account of meritocracy that follows entails that unequal educational prospects are fair only when they result from the constraints of individual potential (or from differential effort). I argue that this potential-based account of meritocracy, though demanding, is a plausible and attractive account of educational justice.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,130

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-02-23

Downloads
64 (#330,036)

6 months
17 (#170,916)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Tammy Harel Ben Shahar
New York University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Dispositions without Conditionals.Barbara Vetter - 2014 - Mind 123 (489):129-156.
Principles of Social Justice.David Miller - 2002 - Philosophical Quarterly 52 (207):274-276.
How Not to Be a Hypocrite: School Choice for the Morally Perplexed Parent.Adam Swift - 2005 - British Journal of Educational Studies 53 (2):213-215.

View all 22 references / Add more references