Last time, I asked: Given that meritocracy as traditionally defined is practically impossible, is there any point in appealing to it as a social ideal? This time, I suggest a way to peel off two ideas from the mirage ideal of meritocracy that might actually be feasible and worth striving for.

Modern economic life—where people have careers, advancements, successes, and failures—will always end up failing to be meritocratic, as traditionally defined. Given that, is there any point to appealing to meritocracy as a social ideal? And if not, why do people find this ideal so appealing?

Shouldn’t everybody have an equal vote? Isn’t majority rule just an excuse to keep minorities down? Is a truly fair democracy even possible? And how do we decide what counts as fair in the first place? This week on Philosophy Talk, we’ll explore answers to these questions!

The idea that athletics and philosophy are connected may sound strange at first. But if we see philosophy as a way of life rather than a set of beliefs, it’s not a stretch to imagine that athletic training can cultivate skills we need for the whole of our lives, both on and off the playing field.

Can an algorithm be racist? An algorithm used to determine bail sentencing assesses the risk that an individual will reoffend. Critics claim the algorithm is unfair because it incorrectly assesses more black individuals as high risk than white.