Favoritism et al

Is favoritism bad? Is it an evil? Does it need to be chucked out of the Civilized Human Society?

Well, after spending a few precious moments on the subject at hand, I ve come to a conclusion that like everything else, favoritism as well, is a necessary evil. The world cannot be "human" unless such an element is not attached to any activity we pursue. Ok, granted that it might not, in some cases, allow the real talent, the actual meritorious candidates get what they deserve. But misuse of any kind of "power" does have its side-effects. Consequences of atomic power falling into wrong hands & "heads" is already well known and well publicized.

The issue here is, is it possible to identify "deserving" candidates for anything, objectively, on the basis of a few metrics defined by us, the humans. Is is "correct" in the first place to judge fellow beings on the basis of a few well-defined criteria? Ain't it possible that a truly deserving candidate misses out on one of those criteria & hence, does not get the opportunity he/she deserves?

In such a case, isn't it perfectly ethical for a person in power, to actually favor such a person, and give him/her that single opportunity to show the world his/her true potential? Then why are people who do put such means to practice, criticized and looked down upon as "corrupt" officials?

Well, there might be an answer to that as well. It is perfectly "ethical" to give truly deserving candidates a chance. However, being a relative of a person in power is no criteria to deserve such an opportunity. The person with power at his disposal, must use it with utmost discretion, providing only the deserving ones the coveted chance. Only when there is a gross misuse of power that not only the person but also the practice earns such a bad name.

Haven't there been 'n' number of cases in this world, where given such a back-door chance, truly bright people have influenced the course of history? Ok, the opposite cases are much more commonplace! Granted. Which brings us to the same point again.

IS it more important to ensure "good" with certain "bad" events happening as a side-effect? Or is the prevention of "bad" the only thing? It seems the second case is true of the present world, and maybe, the world since it came into being. Which then, raises another point. Are we all, by default, pessimists, always expecting the "bad" things to happen, and devoting most of our energies to its prevention, rather than focusing on "improvising" and making the "good" things happen at the expense of a few "not-so-good" things occuring.

Guess, it is just a matter of interpreting a glass of water as being Half-full or Half-empty.