Only recently have humans been able to produce a continuous supply of surplus resources[1]. To apportion this surplus a system based on domination emerged and has been present ever since. Domination systems enable a select few to enjoy concentrated power and wealth by setting rivals and subordinate groups against one another. Groups might be turned against each other based on their tribal, ethnic, religious, racial, linguistic, sexual, gender, or other identity differences. Within groups elite access to resources is enforced by police power and between groups by militia.
Key elements in every stratified society is the assumed superiority of some deserving of reward, and the inferiority of others. Today, we regard certain groups and individuals as worthy of enjoying preferential access to resources, power, and influence because they are believed to have merit — presenting virtuous characteristics, or admirable behaviors. Such a system is known as a meritocracy. Reflective of earlier domination systems, meritocracies lavish rewards on those deemed worthy while allowing those regarded as unworthy to endure hardship and sometimes serious harm.
A common critique of our meritocratic system is that it is not meritocratic enough – this is an aspirational critique. It is well known that being born into the elite class results in advantages which ensure remaining in that class regardless of virtuous qualities or behaviors. The aspirational critique argues that if factors which weaken meritocratic effects such as nepotism, cronyism, and corruption were eliminated our entire society would greatly benefit. Through this analysis a system based on reward and punishment is not problematic as long as those who are rewarded or punished are truly deserving.
Although fixing our meritocratic system so that it operates more consistently with its ideals would be an improvement, from a Naturalistic Humanist vantage point a more effective meritocratic system would still be problematic. The underlying assumptions about human nature on which our system is built are incorrect, resulting in a fundamental misalignment between what humans need and what they receive.
Based on the belief that humans are driven by selfishness and greed, and a reluctance to contribute unless coerced, our system relies on positive and negative re-enforcers.
When trained for a position in high demand such as a registered nurse, or an engineer, society re-enforces that contribution with a relatively good salary sufficient for a decent life. Taking a path in conflict with society, like drug addiction results in a barrage of undesirable consequences including rejection by friends and family, poverty, violence, incarceration, sickness, and an early demise.
It is completely reasonable for society to encourage behaviors that benefit it and discourage those that harm it.
But our current system takes positive and negative reinforcement to outrageous extremes. We allow an elite few to enjoy lives of limitless luxury and political influence while others remain burdened with mounting debt struggling for their entire lives to afford life’s essentials such as decent housing, medical insurance, and healthy food.
And if our human nature actually made us as selfish, greedy, and unmotivated to contribute as is commonly assumed then our system of extreme reward for some and hardship or punishment for others might, be defensible. But because human nature is substantially different from what is commonly assumed, our socio-economic system and our human nature are critically misaligned.
The most comprehensive consideration of data from disciplines such as social psychology, and neuroscience indicates that when healthy mature humans have had their developmental needs supported, they are naturally inclined to be cooperative, caring, and to want to participate and contribute — exactly what society needs. When a person’s developmental needs are neglected however, or if they have been subject to deprivation or abuse, the chances of their fullest human potential becoming realized is severely reduced.
By not assuring sufficient access to the resources essential for a healthy stable developmental environment for all, our system disenfranchises masses of people resulting in an immense amount of unrealized human potential. Unrealized human potential does even more harm to society than just being deprived of all of the lost contributions. When someone is raised in conditions which fail to support their essential developmental needs, there is increased likelihood that their human nature will be expressed in ways that are harmful to society. The stresses and deprivation associated with poverty are closely linked to lower educational achievement, having children without a committed child-raising partnership, interpersonal violence, or crime, becoming alcohol or drug dependent, suffering mental health issues and homelessness.
When our society fails to provide essential developmental support, the overall costs are vast. Based purely on practical considerations, it makes sense to change our social-economic policies so that they are consistent with what social science and neuroscience tell us about our true social nature. Instead of allowing an ever-intensifying concentration of wealth and power to be captured by a relative few, society should take on the task of resource redistribution so that no child develops without access to a safe, stable, and enriching environment.
In addition to its utility, making such a change has a significant moral aspect. Our society has a widely accepted belief that whatever path a person chooses results from a process which emanates from that individual and that they always could have chosen otherwise had they merely wanted to. Through this analysis, no matter what events precede, behavior is considered freely chosen, and therefore, what people get is, usually, what they deserve.
In reality however, we can only take the path our determinants allow. The hard worker who succeeds, and the drug addict who fails are both following the trajectory of their determinants. Merely the luck of circumstance separates those who behaves in ways society rewards from someone who behaves in ways society penalizes. Given this, a system such as ours providing excessive rewards for some while burdening others cannot be morally justified.
From a Naturalistic Humanist perspective, a more just system will have far less disparate outcomes and regard everyone as worthy of protection from the violence and suffering that result from being deprived of the resources needed for living a decent life.
[1] While most scientists believe anatomically modern humans have existed for at least 200,000 years and some believe even as far back as 350,000 years- our ability to accrue a reliable supply of surplus resources probably developed over the past 12 – 15,000 years.