Summary
Beyond merely winning competitions, it’s about ensuring that competition is fair, with safety nets and opportunities for those who fail to try again, maximizing human potential across society. To achieve this, we argue for the necessity of exploring ethical foundations that transcend time and culture, and incorporating them into education and social systems. Thought experiments like the Mitochondrial Eve and logical analysis of meritocracy demonstrate intellectual courage to question existing common sense and authority rather than accepting them unquestioningly, and to re-examine fundamental principles.
Building a Society for True Competition
When considering ethics, knowledge from traditional disciplines such as theology and Buddhism is useful. The problems with arbitrary application of ethics are clear when examining history.
My stance:
When did we forget that humans are not the only ones living here?
https://trgrkarasutoragara.substack.com/p/when-did-we-forget-that-humans-are
An Open Love Letter to God from a Japanese Protestant Believer
https://trgr-lab.com/japanese-protestant-letter-to-god/
Faith, Doubt, and the Search for Ethical Clarity: A Spiritual Memoir Since Age 12
https://trgr-lab.com/faith-doubt-and-the-search-for-ethical-clarity-a-spiritual-memoir-since-age-12/
What do you think ethics is?
I believe it’s an internal standard for accurately judging what should not be done even if possible, and what should be done. That’s why ethics is essential when conducting cutting-edge research and development like AI.
Let’s conduct a thought experiment. In human molecular biology, the mitochondrial Eve, who is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of all living humans, has dignity because she was human. She lived in Africa during a time before the Bible or Jerusalem existed. It was likely a time before written language. And because she walked upright and had a developed brain, childbirth was more difficult than for other mammals. She gave birth in an era without anesthesia or medical care.
From the standpoint of ethics and theology, could you explain the relationship between original sin and childbirth in a way that would reassure or satisfy mitochondrial Eve? I think she would find it difficult to accept explanations based on concepts that were established after her time, as this is not an issue on her side.
This is not to say the Bible is wrong, but rather an example of how, as science advances, contradictions arise, necessitating deep contemplation about the nature of ethics.
Is meritocracy actually meritorious?
Original proposition and its logical formula
Original proposition: “Discrimination based on meritocracy is acceptable”
Expressed as a logical formula:
P → Q
Where:
– P = “It is based on meritocracy”
– Q = “Discrimination is acceptable”
This creates a conditional statement: If “it is based on meritocracy,” then “discrimination is acceptable.”
Derivation of the contrapositive
The contrapositive is derived by negating both the antecedent and consequent and then swapping them.
Contrapositive: ¬Q → ¬P
– ¬Q = “Discrimination is unacceptable” (negation of “discrimination is acceptable”)
– ¬P = “Cannot be based on meritocracy” (negation of “it is based on meritocracy”)
Thus, the contrapositive becomes: “If discrimination is unacceptable, then it cannot be based on meritocracy.”
In logic, a proposition and its contrapositive are always logically equivalent (both are either true or both false). Therefore, analyzing the contrapositive to examine issues with the original claim is a logically valid approach.
By analyzing this contrapositive, the contradictions and problems with the concept of “discrimination based on meritocracy” become clear from a different perspective. Particularly, by starting from the premise that “discrimination is unacceptable,” the limitations of evaluation systems based solely on meritocracy become more evident.
In this way, justifying discrimination on any grounds is logically flawed, but those who wish to justify discrimination based on meritocracy have limitations not only in ethics but also in double standards, discrimination, and logical thinking ability. Yet, can people who ignore “ethics, double standards, discrimination, and logical thinking ability” uphold compliance and professional ethics as leaders or experts?
Libraries for children, second chances for the defeated
I am not writing this discourse for the purpose of attack or criticism. For example, Nobel Literature Prize winner Kenzaburo Oe and his wife did not give up on their son Hikari, who has severe disabilities. They recognized his aptitude for music, provided him with education, and he became a composer. Education is also about having the courage not to give up on someone.
We cannot choose to be born into the family of a Nobel Prize-winning author, nor can we choose to be born with severe disabilities like Hikari. This is fundamentally unfair. For instance, I think the biblical people tried to explain this unfair irrationality. Buddhist concepts of reincarnation, karma from previous lives, merit (effort) in the current life, and salvation in the next life were used to maintain fixed social status in feudal times, but at the same time, they represent a history of monks confronting human suffering in an era when individuals had no freedom to change their circumstances.
Our ethics has roots in these traditional religions.
When people despair, they become self-destructive, causing society’s public safety to deteriorate. In contrast, there are those who, like me in my youth, encounter difficulties but refrain from attacking others, instead frequenting libraries to learn and think, internalizing ethics. What kind of society do you want to design? I don’t want to impose values, so I want you to think about it.
Also, please consider that when opportunities for vocational training are given to those who have lost in competition, they will make renewed attempts, improving public safety, increasing social productivity, raising tax revenue, and reducing social security costs.
John Bordley Rawls proposed a thought experiment called the “Veil of Ignorance.” It’s an approach to discussing social institutions and principles of justice without knowing what social position, qualities, talents, or preferences one might have. For us to consider social rules through the “Veil of Ignorance,” we need to update society’s educational foundation.
This is because a society where motivated people are rewarded and everyone can live with peace of mind would be more competitive if it evaluated not just the results of tests around age 18 but also lifelong learning, challenges, and outcomes.
Scoring a goal in soccer is wonderful. But a single goal doesn’t win the game. A single game doesn’t make you the season’s champion. And history is made through years of accumulation. While soccer involves this much competitive effort, is there merit in focusing too much on “a single goal” in human society when it comes to competition?
Wouldn’t this be misunderstood as the winning side wanting to maintain their advantageous position? Considering this, ethics and education are useful when contemplating better rules for competition.
Conclusion
True competitiveness is not about winning once. It is guaranteed by a country and society that never gives up on providing opportunities for all people, regardless of their life stage, to learn, recover, and grow as human beings.