The Fallacy of Virtue
Jan. 13th, 2005 09:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
forsythThere's a view of the world that's fairly popular in the US, that attributes all success to the virtue of the person who succeeds, and all failures to a person's vices and weakness. It's very attractive, because it lets you feel good about what you accomplish and lets you dismiss people who haven't as "lazy" or "weak". There's just one problem with this theory. It's not true.
Oh, it has some basis in truth, but it ignores outside influences, natural advantages, and plain dumb luck. It falls into the same trap as the whole idea of karma, where it defines anything that happens as something people "deserve", and so makes sure there's no reason to change it. But that's not how success works. People don't succeed just because they're good and hard working. Those things help, but it takes other factors, too. "It's not what you know, it's who you know," is a truism in many businesses. Age, connections, luck, sex, race, and many other things play into success. Does anybody really think a kid born on the streets has the same chance to become a CEO as a kid born to rich, well-connected parents? (And no, one or two counter-examples doesn't disprove it, we're talking general trends) Rich parents can give their kids better nutrition, better schooling, better training, access to more influential people, etc. These can be overcome, but it takes a combination of talent, hard work, and luck.
On the other side of things, somebody can be a good person, talented, work hard, and then something will happen beyond their control and wipe them out. Like Davan, in S*P, for example. Or, more realistically, the company can go out of business because of other people's actions (Enron being a good example here), the economy could hit the crapper, a car accident, house fire, sudden unexpected health emergency... Plenty of things can take away somebody's success, besides somebody better succeeding instead.
Maybe the most damaging part of this whole belief isn't the part where everybody thinks they can succeed if they try hard, that's generally a good thing, because then people do try hard. Even if most of them won't succeed, at least not how they hoped. No, what's really damaging is the association of virtue with success and wealth. So people end up automatically assuming successful people are good, and ones who aren't, aren't. More often than not successful people are good AT something that makes them money, that's completely separate from being good. Success neither requires nor creates virtue.
[meta: mindscribbles]
Oh, it has some basis in truth, but it ignores outside influences, natural advantages, and plain dumb luck. It falls into the same trap as the whole idea of karma, where it defines anything that happens as something people "deserve", and so makes sure there's no reason to change it. But that's not how success works. People don't succeed just because they're good and hard working. Those things help, but it takes other factors, too. "It's not what you know, it's who you know," is a truism in many businesses. Age, connections, luck, sex, race, and many other things play into success. Does anybody really think a kid born on the streets has the same chance to become a CEO as a kid born to rich, well-connected parents? (And no, one or two counter-examples doesn't disprove it, we're talking general trends) Rich parents can give their kids better nutrition, better schooling, better training, access to more influential people, etc. These can be overcome, but it takes a combination of talent, hard work, and luck.
On the other side of things, somebody can be a good person, talented, work hard, and then something will happen beyond their control and wipe them out. Like Davan, in S*P, for example. Or, more realistically, the company can go out of business because of other people's actions (Enron being a good example here), the economy could hit the crapper, a car accident, house fire, sudden unexpected health emergency... Plenty of things can take away somebody's success, besides somebody better succeeding instead.
Maybe the most damaging part of this whole belief isn't the part where everybody thinks they can succeed if they try hard, that's generally a good thing, because then people do try hard. Even if most of them won't succeed, at least not how they hoped. No, what's really damaging is the association of virtue with success and wealth. So people end up automatically assuming successful people are good, and ones who aren't, aren't. More often than not successful people are good AT something that makes them money, that's completely separate from being good. Success neither requires nor creates virtue.
[meta: mindscribbles]
