Menu
The Goodman Institute Health Blog
  • Home
  • Authors
    • Devon Herrick, Ph.D.
    • John C. Goodman
  • Popular Topics
    • Artificial Intelligence and Healthcare
    • Consumer-Driven Health Care
      • Affordable Care Act
      • Cost of Healthcare
      • COVID-19 and Public Health
      • Doctors & Hospitals
      • Public Insurance
      • Policy & Legislation
    • Direct Primary Care
    • Health Economics & Costs
      • Drug Prices & Regulations
      • Health Insurance
      • Health Reform
    • Medical Tourism
    • Telemedicine
    • Medicare
      • Single-Payer/Medicare-for-All
  • Goodman Institute
  • Contact
The Goodman Institute Health Blog

Philosophers: Meritocracy is Bad for Your Health and Wellbeing

Posted on March 14, 2025March 13, 2025 by Devon Herrick

Perhaps Theodore Roosevelt was right, “comparison is the thief of joy.” The quote is also variously attributed to Mark Twain, author C. S. Lewis, and religious figure Dwight Edwards. A recent article took aim at meritocracy. Yes, a group of philosophers argue meritocracy is a bad thing or at least it causes bad feelings. In a new book they explain, Western meritocracy traps people in emotions of envy, shame and fear.

The rich are getting richer, and poverty is rapidly increasing in Western countries with market economies. This growing inequality has a significant impact on the well-being of citizens.

Their argument is discussed in a new book “Extravagance and Misery.” Philosophers Alan Thomas, Alfred Archer, and Bart Engelen claim that negative emotions, such as envy, shame, and fear result from the meritocratic market economy and these emotions are internalized in ways that adversely affect people’s well-being. Two of the authors work at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, while Alan Thomas is from the University of York in England. While purporting to measure negative emotions and explain wellbeing, the philosophers have seemingly stumbled onto Marxist political economy.

Engelen states, “In our society, the focus is on the economy and wealth. Wealthy people have significant influence on politics. They don’t always accumulate wealth through hard work but through mechanisms like earning interest. The income gap between a CEO and someone on the work floor can be as much as 200%, yet it’s impossible for the manager to work 200% harder or more.

“French economist Thomas Piketty notes that if you’re rich, it’s much easier to become even richer than it is for poor people. This means a mix of politics, power, and economics is at play, promoting unfairness.”

Archer states, “The dominant narrative of meritocracy—a system that emphasizes earning one’s place in society based on individual merit—sustains itself this way. In the United States, the belief that anything is possible (‘you can make it if you try’) is strong despite widespread poverty. If people feel they have full control over their work and contributions, shame is greater when they fail.

“Conversely, when they succeed, they feel they deserve admiration. European societies are less extreme in this regard, but the underlying narrative is similarly merit-based.”

The philosophers apparently favor participation trophies for adults too. I just realized universal basic income could be described as a participation trophy for life. Guess what the philosophers’ solution is? It’s taxation and redistribution. 

Archer says, “Governments can ensure the redistribution of resources to promote social mobility, such as investing in good public education. Leaving it to the market always benefits the elite. 

“Anger over injustice is actually a very justified emotion,” Archer adds. “If someone earns so many times more than you, that’s not fair. People have the right to demand change. Solidarity should be the narrative, and people can join unions.”

In earlier works, French economist, Thomas Piketty, argued that the tax cuts during the Reagan era is what led to the large gap in income between workers and CEOs. Supposedly, when taxes were high an extra dollar in executives’ pockets was worth so little (due to high marginal taxes) that they willingly gave up income to boost workers’ pay. Piketty’s claim is difficult to prove and probably wrong.

Meritocracy was the answer to economic systems where only the elite advanced in society. Rigid social class stratification meant that people could never rise above the station in which they were born. It seems rather disingenuous to claim meritocracy needs fixed by watering down the results. That erodes meritocracy itself. The authors conclude by saying “…Meritocracy belongs to our era, and there’s no reason why we can’t change it. But first, we need to understand and identify the problems.” 

Read more at: Western meritocracy traps people in emotions of envy, shame and fear, philosophers say

1 thought on “Philosophers: Meritocracy is Bad for Your Health and Wellbeing”

  1. Bart Ingles says:
    March 14, 2025 at 9:05 am

    Seeing statements like this from a name is so close to my own is giving me bad feelings.

    Loading...
    Reply

Join the conversation.Cancel reply

For many years, our health care blog was the only free enterprise health policy blog on the internet. Then, when the NCPA closed its doors, the health blog stopped as well.

During this five-year hiatus no one else has come forward to claim the space. So, my colleagues and I have decided to restart the blog in connection with the Goodman Institute. We invite you and others to use this forum to share your views.

John C. Goodman,

Visit www.goodmaninstitute.org

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 36 other subscribers

Popular Topics

©2025 The Goodman Institute Health Blog | Website by Lexicom
%d