Except first prize was granted by your parents and upbringing. Second prize was partially because of parents and upbringing, but with a bit more luck.
And bronze? Yeah, well they're just lazy and bad and they deserve what little they have - cause the Gold and Silver earned what they have.
Don't we then all have the same ancestors and therefore all equal opportunity?
3. It is evident that even being born, not all babies are equal. And that's before we consider socioeconomic status.
Should humans be considered as equal? Of course. However its quite easily demonstrated that people aren't.
This is reductio ad absurdio.
Just about every study done on the subject shows that the family you're born into has a HUGE effect on how successful you'll be in life.
Is this irrelevant? Why is it not acceptable for someone that had better parents to do better?
Yet, we have little issue,society speaking, condemning a baby and their family to a life of poverty to continue that cycle.
Or should we say that the newborn/baby deserves lack of medical care, substandard food or hunger,substandard housing, less/lacking education? If you believe they deserve that, can you explain what actions a baby can do differently?
"Why is it not acceptable for someone that had better parents to do better?"
If your whole schtick is about "meritocracy", then having people start out better by default defeats that entire thing.
Why do they deserve that power? What checks and balances exist to prevent them from entreanching themselves and family/friends?
Follow the money and power.