In his article, Nepotism: ‘The Rich Man’s Burden’, Calum Murray makes shocking arguments on his perception towards nepotism. Murray talks about nepotism and the impact it has in the society. He argues that in the modern day and age, experience, and not qualification, is essential in guiding one to secure a job. Having a barren CV is not a guarantee that one will secure a well-paying job. This is the reason why people must invest in activities that will build their experiences in their careers of choice. He notes with a lot of concern that it has become increasingly difficult for students out of college to secure jobs (that pay well), unless one wants to work as an unpaid intern.
Despite arguing that experience is key in securing a job, he introduces another element that is superior and better-ranked than experience: connections. Murray argues that a person who is well-connected has a better chance of securing a well-paying job as compared to a hardworking person without the connections (Nepotism: ‘The Rich Man’s Burden’, n.d). Knowing somebody influential may help one secure job easily even when they don’t have the required experience. In his case, for instance, he expects to secure a job in Lebanon without even attending an interview, courtesy of the fact that his father hooked him up with some senior persons.
Although the author argues that nepotism is bad and should be discouraged, he tries to give justifications as to why he can’t turn down the job. First, he argues that nepotism and using influential personalities to secure jobs at the expense is a right that one should not refuse. The only caveat he emphasizes on is that upon taking the job in question, don’t waste it. Handle it as if you fully deserve it. After all, employed people pay taxes which the government should use to help poor and needy people. Second, he argues that education should be based on one’s area of interest. It is wrong to subject a bright mind to a given career path when they will face difficulties and challenges in securing jobs in such careers. In conclusion, he argues that one’s career choice should be based on their interest on it and aspects to do with marketability.
Discussion as to whether the argument the author makes succeeds or fails
Despite addressing both issues in making his argument, Murray largely sides with nepotism, trying to give a justification as to why it should be promoted. Simply put, he argues that being your ‘father’s son’ is an accident that no one should be ashamed of. This accident brings forth opportunities that one should never deny. In fact, one should grab the opportunity with two hands without thinking about those who are qualified but less privileged. This argument is contrary to Jeremy Bentham’s approach. Bentham’s approach is based on maximizing utility. A person’s actions, according to Bentham, can only be judged according to the effect they have on humans (Bentham & Lafleur, 1948). Actions that bring about the greatest good ought to be encouraged, while those that do not make many people should be discouraged. Clearly, the author’s argument does not meet the utilitarianism threshold. The position of this paper is that such an argument terribly fails. Although on the face value it could appear to be successful, a careful analysis reveals the various ethical issues that Murray overlooks. Reference shall be made to Lebanon in demystifying this issue. Here is why Murray fails.
First, it is clear that the author seeks to mislead young and hardworking individuals. Hinting to them that education is no longer the basis of securing a well-paying job is a big fallacy. Murray’s argument seems to motivate young people to concentrate on establishing connections as opposed to working hard (Nepotism: ‘The Rich Man’s Burden’, n.d). There is no doubt that this will have a negative impact to the society. There is no doubt that despite the high level corruption and nepotism in Lebanon, some of the hardworking individuals are rewarded for their attributes. Stating that only nepotism is a sure way of getting employment is wrong. Corruption and nepotism benefit only a few people in the society, at the expense of the rest. If Bentham’s argument is to be applied, utility is undermined. A number of industries and companies in Lebanon have programs where they identify students with the brightest minds, and integrate them to their employment ladder. This strategy has been used over and over again, to large satisfaction. Whereas it is true that using the ‘back-door’ approach is the easiest way of securing a job, the author fails to note that such a move has a high possibility of affecting the performance and productivity of a firm. Because of the important role that human resource plays, there is a need for ensuring that education thresholds are met before awarding one a job opportunity. Murray’s misconceptions mislead the young and hardworking individuals.
It is apparent that the author seems to encourage the ‘backdoor approach’ in an attempt for people to secure meaningful jobs. According to him, having connections is an essential thing that one should appreciate. Because his father is an influential character, the author will secure a job in Lebanon. It would be difficult to see a problem with this if one is the beneficially. However, analyzing the impact this has on national development, the ‘backdoor approach’ should be discouraged. Not everyone can use this approach, hence the fact that it benefits only a few at the expense of others. In Lebanon, currently, this is a hot topic that touches on every sector of the economy. The political elites and financial gurus tend to use the influence they have to dictate senior government official nominations. Power and powerful positions seem to be transferred from one family member to another as the poor people look on without any solution. The beneficiaries are the offspring of these lineages. In the long-term, only a certain lineage gets to benefit from the national cake. It has also created insensitivity of leaders to their constituents. Simply put, wealthy leaders in Lebanon do not know the challenges that the citizens undergo. Because this is the case, the citizens have been forced to play a partial role in the development of the economy. How about if such senior jobs in the government were awarded on merit, depending on one’s academic performance? Resources would be evenly distributed. It would also mean a motivation to young students because they will know that if they work hard, their efforts will be rewarded. Sadly, this is not the case in Lebanon, and the author’s revelations is the perfect example of how the system in Lebanon is corrupt.
In his article, the author states that accepting and embracing nepotism in any country is not intrinsically wrong. He argues that instead of spending time and energy criticizing it, such energy should be redirected towards making attempts to connect the underprivileged in the society. He further argues that it is, in fact, very wrong to give up an opportunity based on moral grounds. That such an opportunity is unavailable to others, he states, is no reason for one to turn down an opportunity. To this, he equates the treatment one can get in NHS and the availability of universal healthcare. This argument is not only astonishing; it raises several questions.
In the paragraph referenced above, the first point the author makes is that people should actually try and connect the less-privileged members of the society. That this is the only way that a level playing ground can be achieved in an attempt to secure employment opportunities. Not only is this argument un-informed, it shows how the author fails to understand the demographics of Lebanon. In Lebanon, 75 percent of the entire resources of the country are under the control of 15 percent of the wealthiest people in the country. This means that majority of the citizens cannot be expected to play on a level field. How is it possible that the 15 percent will connect the remaining 85 percent? Simply put, it will be impossible for the bright but poor kids to get a helping hand in an attempt to secure a job (Nepotism in Organizations, 2011). The only option that can work in Lebanon is ensuring that all people are treated equal when seeking to secure employment opportunities.
The article also talks about why morals should be done away with. In his opinion, one should not bank on morality at the expense of employment. This shows how he misplaces his priorities. For any country to succeed, it ought to put a lot of emphasis on morality of its citizens. This is the only way that citizens will respect the available laws. The crime rate in Lebanon has been on the increase in recent years. This can be rightly attributed to a decrease in moral values. The fact that the author degrades the impact of morals in succeeding in life is unaccepted. Promoting good morals in Lebanon is tantamount to boosting economic growth.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that the article has numerous flaws, and that it terribly fails. The author chooses to glorify nepotism because he directly benefits from it. He fails to take into consideration the happiness of people. There is no doubt that the author’s argument is against Bentham’s approach. Maximizing utility ought to be used as a guideline to the actions that people engage in.
References
Bentham, J., & Lafleur, L. J. (1948). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. New York: Hafner Pub. Co.
Nepotism in Organizations. (2011). doi:10.4324/9780203805886
Nepotism: ‘The Rich Man’s Burden’ - The Boar. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://theboar.org/2012/01/nepotism-rich-mans-burden/
