Michael Sandel critiques meritocracy itself, not just a flawed version of it. In The Tyranny of Merit, he argues that even a well-functioning meritocracy—where opportunities are equal and winners are truly the most talented—would still be morally and politically problematic.

His key critiques are:

1. Hubris and Humiliation: Meritocracy breeds hubris among the "winners" (those who succeed believe they deserve their success entirely) and humiliation among the "losers" (those who struggle are told it's their own fault). This creates resentment and fractures solidarity.

2. Moral Arrogance: It erodes humility and gratitude by replacing luck and fortune with personal virtue as the explanation for success. Sandel calls for a "politics of humility" instead of a meritocratic moral narrative.

3. Overvaluation of Credentialism: He critiques the excessive value placed on academic achievement and elite university admission as the ultimate form of social sorting, leading to technocratic governance and a diminished respect for non-academic labor.

4. Concealed Elitism: Even when meritocracy claims to be fair, it still favors those already privileged. More importantly, even if it were perfectly fair, Sandel argues that judging human worth by achievement is itself corrosive.

So, his critique is fundamental: it's not just that meritocracy fails to live up to its ideals—its ideals themselves are flawed.

Would you like a comparison with other thinkers like Rawls or Deneen on this point?

You said:

Michael Sandel critiques **meritocracy itself**, not just a flawed version of it. In _The Tyranny of Merit, he argues that even a well-functioning meritocracy—where opportunities are equal and winners are truly the most talented—would still be morally and politically problematic.

What if merit involved properly acknowledging both formal or technical achievement and what someone deserves in a broader and historically attentive moral sense?

ChatGPT said:

Sandel would likely welcome the spirit of your question even as he remains skeptical of the moral vocabulary of "merit" itself.

If merit were redefined to morally acknowledge both achievement and the conditions that shaped it—including luck, background, social contributions, and care—it would shift the very foundation of meritocracy toward relational justice rather than competitive sorting.

So your version of merit moves toward a communitarian or virtue-ethical frame, where what someone deserves includes moral responsibility, embeddedness in relationships, and civic contribution—not just what they achieve in a market or academic contest.

Sandel might ask, however: Can the very term “merit” ever be reclaimed from its deeply individualizing, competitive connotations? Or is it too embedded in a liberal framework of possessive individualism?

Do you see your reframing as a rehabilitation of merit, or more as a way to replace it with a new moral grammar entirely?

Michael Sandel is deeply shaped by communitarian and Aristotelian (virtue-ethical) traditions, and much of his critique of liberalism, meritocracy, and technocracy flows from this grounding. Here's how he approaches each:

---

🏘️ Communitarianism (Sandel’s Approach)

Sandel is one of the key figures in the communitarian critique of liberal individualism, especially as articulated in his early work, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982). He argues against the liberal view—especially that of John Rawls—which assumes that the self is prior to its ends, capable of choosing values independently of social attachments or histories.

Sandel’s alternative is that:

• The self is embedded in a moral and cultural context—it is not a free-floating chooser.

• Identities, values, and obligations are constituted by the communities and traditions we inhabit.

• Justice is not just about procedural fairness (as in Rawls), but about defining and debating the common good together.

• Political discourse should involve moral reasoning about the good life, not just neutral principles.

So, for Sandel, a good society requires public deliberation about virtue, purpose, and meaning, not just neutral frameworks that leave such questions to the private sphere.

---

⚖️ Virtue Ethics (Aristotelian Influences)

Sandel draws heavily on Aristotle’s conception of justice, particularly the idea that:

• Justice is teleological—it must consider the purpose (telos) of a practice or institution.

• To know what justice demands, we must ask what virtues we seek to cultivate in people through that practice.

• For example, distributing flutes isn’t just about fairness—it’s about who can best fulfill the purpose of a flute, which is to make music.

Applied to society:

• Schools, jobs, honors, and wealth should not just be distributed fairly, but in ways that promote human flourishing and virtue.

• This leads Sandel to oppose the idea that we can remain neutral about what the good life is—we must debate and nurture shared virtues.

---

📚 In Practice: What Does This Mean for Politics?

Sandel’s fusion of communitarianism and virtue ethics leads him to argue that:

• Politics should not avoid moral disagreement; it should engage it.

• Democratic life requires public moral discourse about honor, service, dignity, and what we owe one another.

• Economic structures should reflect not just fairness, but civic value and moral worth—hence his support for valuing essential, often underpaid work.

This is the backdrop of The Tyranny of Merit—where Sandel argues that we need to reimagine success, dignity, and contribution in civic and moral terms, not just in terms of credentials or market achievement.

Aside from Aristotle, Michael Sandel has been notably influenced by a constellation of thinkers across moral philosophy, political theory, and theology. Here are some of the most important influences:

---

🧭 1. Immanuel Kant (as a foil)

• Why he matters: Sandel often critiques Kant’s moral philosophy, especially the abstract, universalist notion of the moral self—the idea that moral reasoning can be done independently of context, history, or community.

• How Sandel engages: While not rejecting Kant outright, Sandel sees him (and Rawls, his modern heir) as too detached from embodied, embedded moral life.

---

⚖️ 2. John Rawls (primary target and early teacher)

• Why he matters: Rawls was a dominant figure in 20th-century liberal political philosophy. Sandel studied with him at Harvard and later critiqued his theory of justice in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice.

• Key divergence: Sandel rejects Rawls’ idea of the "unencumbered self"—the self imagined as prior to and independent of its values and commitments. He argues that real selves are shaped by particular moral traditions and communities.

---

🛤 3. Alasdair MacIntyre

• Why he matters: MacIntyre, especially in After Virtue, critiques the fragmentation of modern moral discourse and argues for a return to Aristotelian virtue ethics grounded in tradition.

• Shared themes: Both Sandel and MacIntyre believe that ethics must be situated in historically constituted practices, and both see liberalism as morally thinning. They also agree on the need for a richer conception of the good and the cultivation of virtues.

---

🌐 4. Charles Taylor

• Why he matters: Taylor, another communitarian thinker, emphasizes the cultural and historical embeddedness of identity and moral reasoning.

• Overlap with Sandel: Both argue against the liberal idea that values are chosen in a vacuum and instead see selves as formed within webs of significance. Taylor also brings a theological and phenomenological dimension that resonates with Sandel's moral seriousness.

---

✝️ 5. Christian Theology (esp. Augustine)

• Sandel has at times drawn from Christian moral traditions, particularly in his emphasis on humility, gratitude, and moral limits.

• While not overtly theological, his calls for a “politics of humility” and critique of hubris (in meritocracy, technocracy, etc.) echo Augustinian themes about pride, grace, and the limits of human self-sufficiency.

---

🧠 6. Michael Walzer

• A fellow communitarian who emphasizes moral pluralism and the social meanings of goods.

• Sandel shares Walzer’s view that justice must be context-sensitive, and that different social practices (e.g., medicine, education) should distribute goods according to their internal logic and purpose, not a single abstract principle.

---

🏛 Bonus: Civic Republicanism (incl. Tocqueville and classical sources)

• Sandel is also influenced by the civic republican tradition, which values active citizenship, public virtue, and participation in self-governance.

• Thinkers like Tocqueville and Machiavelli inform his concern that liberal neutrality erodes civic engagement and shared moral purpose.