Response to Consequentialism(Robin Hood and The Outsider/The Stranger)

The ends justify the means. According to Wikipedia, this phrase encapsulates the theory of Consequentialism. Meaning the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct, i.e. the method of achieving a particular result doesn't really matter. I guess this does make sense to a certain extent as it is important to consider one's true intention in any matter. BUT, What is the ideal 'end'? 'End' here, as I interpret it, is probably like, the ultimate goal, which can be happiness for all humanity, gender equality, income equality, etc.

You know what, screw this. What is right or wrong? This question reminds me of the book 'The Outsider', or 'The Stranger', by Albert Camus. It is the first philosophical book that I have ever read and of course, it blew me away and catalyzed the workings of my brain(which wasn't being active despite numerous generalized and superficial TOK lectures. If you do not decipher this as sarcasm, we can't be friends). As readers, we'd naturally judge Mersault with accordance to our own principles and perspective(which is exactly the trap that Camus is setting as the author and thus shows the flaw of our society ridden in ourselves and hence why this is a bloody brilliant book).

Very often, when I think about philosophical questions(to the best I can at least) and common society issues, I come to the same conclusion: Perspectives. Everyone has their own perspective, okay some may decide to follow how a certain religion or philosopher views things, or have similar thoughts to others but the main point is that perspectives are subjective. And I've always felt that this is also the main reason why there are conflicts in our world. Well, obviously, if people are able to come to the same consensus, we wouldn't have so many problems now. Not saying that having many different perspectives is bad; diversity is extremely important. I was referring more to the essence of these different perspectives.

This brings me to my example of Robin Hood. I don't know much about this guy, except that he robbed from the rich and gave those stolen money to the poor. According to Wikipedia, he is a "heroic outlaw". I know I shouldn't be referring to Wiki so much 'cos it's probably not the most accurate source available but just to give you a glimpse of how the general audience views him. Also because it is extremely accessible of course. I personally like the phrase "heroic outlaw", it gives Robin Hood this extra sense of heroism given the context of Medieval times where the rich are barbarians who couldn't care less for the poor(Caution: dubious accuracy. This is my own impression and I can't be bothered to research to verify this). The term 'outlaw' brings me back to 'The Outsider'/'The Stranger' again(If you read this book you will know why I made the connection). How fair is the 'law'? And what do we make of the word 'justice'? Okay this is a large and unfamiliar topic to me so this shall wait.

Anyways, Mr Hood is a fine example of consequentialism. He commits the crime of robbery for the benefit of the poor. It's like how it's not legal for aid workers to secretly bring in say, food supplies into North Korea to save them from starvation. Hoorays. Sure, in the poor's perspective, this is awesome; this is right! But what about the rich barbarians? I'm quite sure they weren't too pleased about having their money stolen; probably thought it was very wrong of Mr Hood to take their money like that.

Let me link this to governance. For me, the government is either on the rich man's side, or the poor man's side. Feel free to disagree and say that I'm being a little extreme but yeah, this is my opinion. And I'm definitely for the poor man's side because the rich needs to care less about possessing money before we can even talk about peace and equality. Just putting out the food on the table! Although I would think that the rich people wouldn't like to give out the money that they've worked hard for. Back to the importance of humanism and compassion once again! And as usual, I have diverted away from my original topic. Sigh.

Response to meritocracy in Singapore

'Meritocracy' is one word that I would immediately link Singapore to, right behind 'sunny', 'merlion' and 'safe'. Do I believe in it? Yes, when i am being optimistic and no, if I were to be practical. I do support it though. I mean, it's really one of the fairest approaches around. I just don't agree that we are a full-fledged meritocratic country. In fact, it's an issue pertaining to the whole world.

First, let's take a look at meritocracy on a global scale and imagine each country as a single individual. Some may be related; depending on how you it, some examples can be like China-North Korea, ASEAN... Anyway, the main point is that each country has its own unique traits - naturally equating to unequal distribution of resources. Which is exactly why we have developed vs developing countries. Some countries are more developed perhaps because they have an abundance of natural resources, for e.g., Norway. Just to keep things short and simple, I'll make this a shallow comparison to maybe, a rich kid with abundant material possessions - student A. And then we have countries like Singapore, with close to zero natural resources(compared to other countries), a country that basically had to start with nothing after WWII save for a good geographic location. And a shallow comparison will probably be a poor kid placed in a good school cos he lives near it(Singaporeans will understand this) - student B.

Given our history, I totally understand why our government advocates meritocracy because we were a country with HDI lower than that of some African countries and now we're like in the top 20? We had as much chances as other countries to succeed(I say this because we weren't really affected by war or natural disasters ever since WWII) and we did, despite our condition after the war and everyday I am thankful for being born into this country. But I believe that we can do so much better. So, let's say student B does well in school without tuition or whatsoever, doing well based on his own hard work. Classic example of meritocracy. But could he have done better if he had student A's family background? Almost definitely. What about students who may not be as lucky as student B to get into a good school? Will his hard work be enough?

Connections helps. I have known a few cases whereby students use connections to get into my school. This is just one example. Money helps. This is a pretty straightforward one. Let's say a student who has done badly for A levels cannot get into any local universities, cannot afford to go any private/overseas universities even though his/her score makes the cut. Where is our 'equal chances'? Money helps. Indefinitely. Which is exactly why one should never let money rule over oneself.

"What gave money its true meaning was its dark-night namelessness, its breathtaking interchangeability." - Haruki Murakami.

Get it right, kid!

In my opinion, there's never gonna be "real meritocracy" because there's always gonna be "invisible classes" in a society. Like, even if there is a total redistribution of resources, to put to a extremity, everyone starting at point zero, there is never going to be a 100% meritocratic society. The state of total equality is bound to diverge at a certain point. For example, setting English as the first language was probably one of the best decisions ever made by our government. I really admire Lee for having such hindsight. Everyone starting on the same foot(well, almost everyone) but yes, we still have high income equality. But the thing is, every country has a certain level of income inequality(duh) so it's really about balance.

And I believe that this balance can only be achieved by a more humanistic Singapore. Yes, that's right, supporter of Mr. Robin Hood here. I can talk all day about the Robin Hood approach and I'm really more of a supporter of the upgraded Robin Hood approach(i.e. Not just monetary transfers + poor giving back to the rich as well. In what ways I haven't thought of, this will be for a later discussion). Sure, you can be super extreme and say that this would mean that the rich does all the work and the poor gains because of their charity and that is oh-so-unfair but come on, nothing is fair in this world. Which is why meritocracy only works to a certain extent since there will never be "real equal chances"[might not even work well; I mean, classless-ness certainly didn't work well for China] but the basis of it is really for people to think about what they can do for the rest of the society. 

So, what are you willing and able to do for our society?