Inequalities Resulting from Natural Talents

This essay explores the idea that the inequalities resulting from the employment of natural talents are completely justified. It discusses the concept of natural talent, the advantages it provides, and the opposition from the concept of egalitarianism. It also examines theories of justice and concludes that natural abilities should be the determining factor for opportunities.

Running head: INEQUALITIES RESULTING FROM NATURAL TALENTS
INEQUALITIES RESULTING FROM THE EMPLOYMENT OF NATURAL
TALENTS
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s Note:

1INEQUALITIES RESULTING FROM NATURAL TALENTS
As opined by Dworkin, the concept of justice and equality are the two most important
which dictated the course of human history as well as their actions over the years. Hurst,
Gibbon and Nurse are of the viewpoint that despite the best efforts of the national
governments as well as the law enforcement departments of the different nations of the world
it is seen that a substantial amount of injustice and inequality persists within the societal
framework of the various nations. More importantly, it is seen that injustice as well as
inequality exists within the framework of the contemporary world at various levels, namely,
educational level, employment level, healthcare services, growth opportunities and others
(Bourguignon). In this regard, it needs to be said that one of the most important causes for the
injustice as well as inequality is the natural talent or the abilities of the individuals
(Frederickson). This is important because of the fact that the people with higher levels of
natural talents are being able to capitalise on the limited growth or development opportunities
which are available to all the individuals in comparison to the other individuals who are not
being able to effectively do so (Howe). As a matter of fact, this places the people who are not
being able to utilise their natural talents in an effective manner and thereby they feel that an
injustice or inequality had been committed against them (Grusky). However, the sole
determining factor of the success or the failure that an individual receives should be the
effectiveness or the efficiency with which they utilise their innate natural talents rather than
the constructs of justice and equality. This essay will explore the idea that the inequalities
resulting from the employment of natural talents are completely justified.
Baker, Schorer and Wattie have articulated the viewpoint that the concept of ‘’natural
talent’ can be defined as in-born talent or more precisely the talent or the skill sets that the
individuals have inherited from their parents at the time of their birth. As opined by Kerr et
al., the concept of natural talent can be traced to the ancient times and the recent popularity
gained by the concerned concept can be explained on the basis of the fact that the present

2INEQUALITIES RESULTING FROM NATURAL TALENTS
world had become much more competitive than that of the earlier times and thereby mere
hard work on the part of the individuals is not enough. More importantly, it is seen that one of
the key advantages of the entity of natural talent is the fact that “it allows the individual a
steep learning curve, whereby he or she acquires skills readily with less practice or hard work
than the average person” (Grusky and Hill). In addition to this, it is seen that the entity of
natural talent enables the individuals to complete the job roles in which they specialise with
the minimal amount of effort and this in turn positions them at an advantage in comparison to
the other individuals who had to rely on the aspect of hard word for gaining success (Mijs).
On the score of this, it can be said that the possession of natural talent as well as the effective
utilisation of the same places the individuals at a competitive advantageous position and
thereby enhances their chances of gaining success in comparison to others.
Brown et al. are of the viewpoint that the possession of natural talents as a matter of
fact makes the concerned individuals the stronger or the ‘more fit’ individuals as per Charles
Darwin’s terminology. In this regard, it needs to be said that Charles Darwin in his famous
work “The Origin of Species” (1859) articulates the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’ which
states that the stronger individuals or the individuals with better quality genes or natural
abilities are more likely to survive within the natural setting in comparison to the weaker
section of the society (Solga). This concept of Darwin articulated in the 19th century is
applicable even within the framework of the contemporary societal framework as well
wherein it is seen that the society is comprised on both the stronger and the weaker
individuals (Dorling). In this context, it needs to be said that the stronger individuals are the
ones who not only have a higher amount of natural talent or abilities but at the same time are
being able to effectively utilise the natural talent that they have for the attainment of success
or the goals that they have outlined for themselves (Carson). On the other hand, weaker
individuals are the ones with low levels of natural talent and also the ones who are not being

3INEQUALITIES RESULTING FROM NATURAL TALENTS
able to effectively utilise the natural talents that they have for the attainment of the objectives
or the goals that they have outlined for themselves or for that matter for the achievement of
success (Howe). However, at the same time it needs to be said that this in turn create
inequality or injustice for that matter within the societal framework. For example, it is seen
that the individuals with higher levels of natural talent or the ones who are being able to
effectively utilise their natural talent are being able to capitalise on the limited growth
opportunities that are presented to them and this in turn significantly limits the amount of
opportunities that are available to other individuals with lower levels of natural talent.
Kanbur and Wagstaff are of the viewpoint that one of the strongest oppositions that
the justification of inequalities or injustices which are being meted out to the individuals on
the basis of the possession as well as the utilisation of natural talents comes from the concept
of egalitarianism. As opined by Dorling, one of the most important aspects of the concept of
egalitarianism is the fact that all individuals within the framework of a particular society are
equal and thereby should have access to the same kind of rights, laws, growth or development
opportunities and others. However, within the actual framework of the modern societies it is
seen that this concept is rarely being practices because of the inherent limitations of the same.
For example, within the particular context of the business world, it is seen that the different
business firms always try to hire or recruit the most qualified as well as talent individuals
who would contribute in an effective manner towards the growth or the development of the
concerned firm rather than the individuals with limited qualification or natural talents just for
the sake for maintain equality among all the individuals of the world (Bourguignon). This
even becomes evident from the aspects of other fields like education, healthcare services and
others as well.
The Egalitarian Theory of John Rawls is an important theory of justice which seeks to
repudiate the idea that the natural talent or the abilities of the individuals should be the sole

4INEQUALITIES RESULTING FROM NATURAL TALENTS
determining factors on which the notions of equality and justice should depend on
(Frederickson). Aas and Wasserman are of the viewpoint that the central fulcrum of Rawl’s
theory of justice is the concept of social justice which he states is the primary feature of the
well-organised societies wherein the individuals would not only get equal opportunities but at
the same time would be able to pursue their different interests in an effective manner. The
resultant effect of this is that the different institutions of the modern societies should aspire to
not only offer equal kind of opportunities but at the same time take different measures for
safeguarding this equality right of the individuals as well (Kanbur and Wagstaff). However,
at the same time it needs to be said that the primary intention of Rawls is to not change the
social institutions but to articulate the principles that they need to follow to safeguard the
equality right as well as the justice right of the individuals within the societal framework. In
this regard, it needs to be said that Rawls theory is somewhat utopian in nature and thereby
very difficult to implement in the practical everyday real-life scenarios (Brown et al.). This
can be explained on basis of the fact the modern society is largely pragmatic in nature and
thereby the opportunities or for that matter the rights of equality and justice are completely
dependent on the abilities of the individuals or the value that they are being able to contribute
towards the society. As a matter of fact, this places the individuals with a higher level of
natural talent or abilities and also the ones who are being able to utilise them in the best
possible manner at an advantage in comparison to the other individuals who do not have the
desired amount of natural talent or for that matter are not being able to utilise them in the best
possible manner (Baker, Schorer and Wattie). In this context, it is generally seen that the
individuals with effective natural talent or abilities are being able to contribute in a much
better manner towards the society or the nations and thereby it can be said that the
inequalities which result from the effective utilisation of natural talents are not unjustified
(Dworkin). This can be explained on the basis of the fact that individuals with higher natural

5INEQUALITIES RESULTING FROM NATURAL TALENTS
talents are not at fault or for that committing any kind of injustice against the people with
lesser amount of natural talent who are not being able to capitalise on the limited
opportunities that are being presented to them by the modern society.
Robert Nozick in his famous book “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” (1974) highlights the
“entitlement theory of justice” which as a matter of fact forms the central fulcrum of the
concept of justice (Bourguignon). As a matter of fact, he states that “a person who acquires a
holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to
the holding, is entitled to the holding” (Howe). However, at the same time it is seen that the
description of justice that he offers is very limited in nature and us largely limited to the
fulfilment of the duties that the individuals owe to the other individuals or the nation in
general (Grusky). Hurst, Gibbon and Nurse are of the viewpoint that one of the major aspects
of this theory of Nozick is the fact that the individuals can enjoy the rights of equality or
justice for that matter if they are being able to effectively fulfil the duties that they owe to the
nation or for that matter to the other individuals. Needless to say, this is very difficult to
implement within the actual real-life situations because of the fact that the individuals by
virtue of the national citizenship that they hold in the nation of their residence are required to
perform the basic duties that are required of them however this does not necessarily entitle
them to any kinds of equality or justice rights in terms of the common opportunities that are
available to them. For example, an individual who had failed to get a job because some other
more qualified and better talented individual had got the same cannot go to the court and
demand justice or equality just because he had fulfilled all his duties towards the nation
(Grusky and Hill).
Kerr et al. have articulated the viewpoint that the population of the contemporary
world is increasing in an exponential manner and although the number of opportunities that
are available to the individuals had increased in a likewise manner yet at the same time it is

6INEQUALITIES RESULTING FROM NATURAL TALENTS
seen that the effective utilisation of these opportunities requires the individuals to use their
natural talents. This is important because of the fact that the individuals as well as the
organisations are increasingly focusing on the aspect of perfection and thereby looking for
the best possible candidates. In this regard, it needs to be said that the organisations as well as
the individuals are increasingly focusing on the concept of Kantianism which articulates the
viewpoint that the ‘end justifies the means that had been adopted for the attainment of the
concerned end’ (Mijs). For example, within the particular context of the business world it can
be said that the primary objective of the different business firms is to attain a higher amount
of profitability and thus for the attainment of this end the business firms would naturally need
the kind of individuals who through the effective utilisation of their natural talent or abilities
would be able to help the firms for the attainment of this end. Thus, it can be said that this
approach taken by the business firms is completely justified from their perspective yet when
considered from the perspective of the individuals with lower levels of natural talents or
abilities this becomes completely unjustified or inequality. As a matter of fact, these
individuals are of the viewpoint that the business firms need to take into account the concept
of utilitarianism and thereby take the help of the kind of actions which are likely to offer the
maximum amount of benefit to the maximum number of people (Solga). However, at the
same time it needs to be said that this is not going to offer any long-term benefits to the
individuals or the other concerned individuals. On the score of these aspects it can be said
that the sole determining factors it can be said that the natural abilities or the talents of the
individuals should be the sole determining factors in the particular context of the
opportunities that are being offered to them rather than the concepts of justice and equality.
To conclude, the natural abilities or the talents of the individuals as well as the
effectiveness with which they are being able to utilise it are an important factor on which the
success or the failure of the individuals greatly depends. However, at the same time it is seen

7INEQUALITIES RESULTING FROM NATURAL TALENTS
that some individuals have a higher level of natural talent or abilities in comparison to others
and this naturally places them at a higher pedestal in comparison to the other individuals with
lesser natural talent or abilities. As a matter of fact, it is seen that the individuals with a
higher level of natural talent or abilities are not only being able to complete certain tasks or
job roles in a much better manner in comparison to others and are also being able to
effectively utilise the limited number of growth or development opportunities that are
presented to them. However, at the same time it is seen that there are many individuals who
consider this to be not only unjust but at the same time inequality as well because of the fact
that it significantly limits the number or the amount of opportunities that are available to
them. In this regard, it needs to be said and also the above discussion makes it apparent that it
not neither unjust nor inequality because of the fact that talent or the innate abilities of the
individuals should be the sole determinants of the success attained by them rather than the
concepts of justice or equality.

8INEQUALITIES RESULTING FROM NATURAL TALENTS
References
Aas, Sean, and David Wasserman. "Natural and Social Inequality: Disability and Fair
Equality of Opportunity." journal of moral philosophy 13.5 (2016): 576-601.
Baker, Joseph, Jörg Schorer, and Nick Wattie. "Compromising talent: Issues in identifying
and selecting talent in sport." Quest 70.1 (2018): 48-63.
Bourguignon, François. The globalization of inequality. Princeton University Press, 2017.
Brown, Phillip, et al. "Credentials, talent and cultural capital: a comparative study of
educational elites in England and France." British Journal of Sociology of
Education 37.2 (2016): 191-211.
Carson, John. The measure of merit: Talents, intelligence, and inequality in the French and
American republics, 1750-1940. Princeton University Press, 2018.
Dorling, Danny. Injustice (revised edition): Why social inequality still persists. Policy Press,
2015.
Dworkin, Ronald. "What is equality? Part 2: Equality of resources." The Notion of Equality.
Routledge, 2018. 143-205.
Frederickson, H. George. "Public administration and social equity." Diversity And
Affirmative Action In Public Service. Routledge, 2018. 5-22.
Grusky, David B. Social stratification: Class, race, and gender in sociological perspective.
Routledge, 2018.
Grusky, David B., and Jasmine Hill. "Poverty and Inequality in the 21st Century." Inequality
in the 21st Century. Routledge, 2018. 1-7.
Grusky, David. Inequality in the 21st century: A Reader. Routledge, 2018.

9INEQUALITIES RESULTING FROM NATURAL TALENTS
Howe, Kenneth R. "The meritocratic conception of educational equality: Ideal theory run
amuck." Educational Theory 65.2 (2015): 183-201.
Hurst, Charles E., Heather M. Fitz Gibbon, and Anne M. Nurse. Social inequality: Forms,
causes, and consequences. Routledge, 2016.
Kanbur, Ravi, and Adam Wagstaff. "How useful is inequality of opportunity as a policy
construct?." Inequality and growth: Patterns and policy. Palgrave Macmillan,
London, 2016. 131-150.
Kerr, Sari Pekkala, et al. Global talent flows. The World Bank, 2016.
Mijs, Jonathan JB. "The unfulfillable promise of meritocracy: Three lessons and their
implications for justice in education." Social Justice Research 29.1 (2016): 14-34.
Shuck, Brad, et al. "Deconstructing the privilege and power of employee engagement: Issues
of inequality for management and human resource development." Human Resource
Development Review 15.2 (2016): 208-229.
Solga, Heike. "The social investment state and the myth of meritocracy." Combating
Inequality. Vol. 199. No. 211. Routledge in association with GSE Research, 2016.
199-211.