The argument that it is morally wrong seems to hinge on the argument that meritocracy promotes selfishness. However, I find the examples used to be problematic. It's shown that when people are led to believe that their success in a game is based on their skill, they are less likely to support redistributing the rewards. This is an example of selfishness. However, what about all the other participants in the game? If they believe that they lost because of someone else's skill, are they less likely to expect redistribution of rewards? If this is the case, it could be shown that meritocracy promotes selfishness in the person at the top but selflessness in everyone else, and therefore a net gain in selflessness in society.

As a thought expermiment, what kind of world would most people prefer to live in, one in which success and rewards can be gained by skill and hard work or one in which success is distributed randomly? This article seems to imply that most people prefer the former. If that's true, then meritocracy is an ideal to work toward, no matter how perfectly or imperfectly it exists today.

The other subject discussed is people's perception of effort and skill in success. Most people seem to think that it's an important factor. But isn't this true even if luck and circumstance are large factors as well? It's a well known fact that people who win lotteries often lose their money and end up less happy than they expect. Anyone can be given the world and waste it. It's not wrong to believe that sustained success requires both effort and strong external support.

Therefore, what I learned from this article is that most people want to live in a meritocracy, and I suspect that most people are happier with their lack of success and reward if they believe that their cicrumstances are somewhat under their control and there exists opportunity to better themselves through effort. We should work toward a more meritocratic world so that more people can realize these ambitions.