The Criticism On Inequality Of Natural Talent

This article aims to put forward criticism on "inequality of natural talent" and to refute the legitimacy of "natural talent inequality". The article is divided into three parts step by step, analyzes "natural talent" gradually, and completes the criticism on "inequality of natural talent" finally.The first part is to analyze "natural talent". First, Comparing with Rawls's and traditional equality theory in some way, we can get the issue of "natural talent". In Rawls's eyes, traditional equality theory can only solve social inequality, but can not solve natural inequality. After that, he come up with "difference principle" in order to solve natural inequality from the "results" in the highest extent. But Rawls's and traditional equality theory both acquiesce in a theoretical premise, namely, human's "start" is unequal. In other words, human on natural talent is unequal. This is to be discussed in this article. Natural talent is a compound word. Talent is already available characteristics about growth before human grow, while the meaning of nature is that things grow naturally without human's intervention. Therefore, "natural talent" should be comprehended as different people have different innate characteristics. Natural talent is non-social and spontaneous, so natural talent only contains "difference", but doesn't include "unfair". Inequality involves value judgment, which contradicts"nature".The second part is to analyze the generation of the conclusion which is "inequality of natural talent". Natural talent only contains difference and doesn't care inequality. "Inequality of natural talent" doesn't generate from "nature", but generates from human's society inequality through observation. Inequality of real life is also determined by different individuals'"naturalness" and the extent of adaptability of special social environment. So human's natural talent is full of differences, and the extent of adaptability of special environment which people themselves live (under a specific time and space) is different. That is to say, the certain social system for different people's "appetency" is different. This "ruler" which is individual social environment confirms people's social real status. Furthermore, "people's social inequality" reflects nature to form "human's natural inequality." Natural talent which is full of differences is divided into high and low grades by social environment "assessment", so "inequality of natural talent" generates by this way.The third part is to criticize "inequality of natural talent". "Inequality natural talent" in essence is to use (under certain historical period and certain regional environment) society as a single "form" to provide these natural talent the abundant "material". The "material" passively adapts to the "form" and is divided into different grades by "form" arbitrarily. In short, There are three main issues in "inequality of natural talent". First, "natural talent" should not involve value judgments and doesn't care "inequality"; Second, to judge people different "natural talent" with individual social environment is narrow; Third, institutional system (broadly defined) in any social environment is not "all good". The contradictions which "inequality of natural talent" incarnates are finally that individuals for the social environment are passive and the social environment is not selective. Society can choose individuals, while individuals can not select the society. An ideal society should be the aggregation formed by a variety of social community, which can make people to "active up", make people choose, and make human's "natural talent" find the most appropriate "destination."...