As you already know and hold dear in your moral being, to support the strong and willing to crush the weak beneath them is abhorrent. Yet, even you, who holds this belief so close, still must admit to sometimes indulging in meritocracy.

Meritocracy somehow is both the most pure form of “the strong shall prevail over the weak” and the most highly regarded framework for judging our peers. To believe in meritocracy is to believe that those who are more able to perform some particular task, ignoring other morally-relevant considerations, should be considered higher status and more deserving than those who are not.

By definition, the stronger are less in need of support as compared to the weak. And further, the stronger are both personally incentivized and socially promoted by meritocracy to succeed their weaker peers. Given that it is wrong for the strong to dominate the weak, this immediately implies that each one of us have a moral obligation to unwaveringly support the weak and to condemn the strong.

And yet we do not.

How can you both believe that strength is not deserving, yet also prefer the strongest to serve you whenever it is to your benefit?

Whatever you want, you want the best affordable, and providing such are the strong uniquely.

Even those of you that claim to support the weak, you still prefer those that can get your attention and win your heart the best — in other words, the strong. It is just meritocracy in disguise. You say that you were choosing less than the best, but instead have artfully but merely replaced the answer to “best at what?”.

To support the weak, as is to each of us our higher moral duty, is to punish strength in every instance, and to support weakness indiscriminately. To save the strong by converting them to weakness is the highest success.