[fpsvogel]

To take one of your examples, high school graduation rates vary from ~25% to ~98% in U.S. school districts. It's not because some districts have a lot more virtuous young people, but because some districts are poor and others are wealthy, among other factors. Even if one of those factors is virtuous parents, kids can't choose their parents.

I'm not denying our moral agency, but it is often constrained by environment. Some people are lucky enough that virtuous choices are easier for them.

[flanked-evergl]

People in all western countries can do all of these things without much difficulty. We can go off the theory that you are just as likely to have a successful life if you drop out of school, have children with many women and/or absent fathers, and not get a permanent job — but there is no data to support any of those claims, and we have been running this experiment for decades now with nothing getting better.

[carlosjobim]

How are then countries which are poorer than the USA ranking higher in education?

I completely reject the notion that wealth is at all a factor in the intelligence or educational success of a child. Wealth is just a correlation. Neither does national educational systems or policies have more than a tiny effect on education success.

What matters for educational success is the genetical and cultural material of the children. If they are born smart, or are brought up in families who value intelligence or brought up in cultures which value intelligence. Even poverty and schooling become small factors if the child has any of these foundations.

[bluGill]

No, but a few of those poor kids see the claim change their life instead of following their parents examples and those kids tend to do well. We see this most in immigrants where the parents come with nothing and barely get by but their kids despite going to the same bad schools do well

[fpsvogel]

Adsolutely. I agree that our lives aren't determined by family background, and we can draw on many other resources, both within ourselves and from other people besides family.

If I overstated my point, it's only because I was pushing back against the idea that education, employment, and a traditional family are equally attainable by all, and if someone has failed in any of these areas, it's because they lack virtue compared to other people (many of whom had more advantageous starting points in life, but supposedly that doesn't matter).

Or in simpler terms, "poor people are poor because they're bad and they deserve it". It's a sentiment that's been very useful for the ultra-wealthy class, and detrimental to everyone else, not just the poor.

[bluGill]

Education, employment, and traditional family are useful things to work with though. They give a direction to try to get the poor to go. We can ask questions on how we can get their kids to go to school and study. We can ask questions about how we can get them acceptable jobs. We can ask how we can get them into stable family situations. We will fail a lot, but it gives us a proven framework to work towards. Yes there are problems - I'm not advocating live with a spouse who abuses you - but we can ask how we can stop that abuse as well.

Now there are many traditions around the world that works. Most cultures have man+women=family (as opposed to some form of polygamy), and there is reason to suspect this is important even if it isn't "in" to study why. (it isn't clear which non-traditional forms also would be fine and which would be a disaster)

Saying "poor are poor because they deserve it" is an accusation that I hear a lot more than I hear people who believe it. Some do believe it, but most accused of it do not and have better explinations of why they do things that the accusers don't like.

[fpsvogel]

I agree that these are useful frameworks. When I said they're not equally attainable by all, I meant that for people who are better off, these things can sort of just fall in their lap, whereas poor people more often have to struggle for them. I know I'm saying something that is common sense, but I just wanted to make the point that inspiring people to be more virtuous is great, but a lot of people face material and psychological obstacles which make attaining these things "without much difficulty" (quoting the parent commenter) not very realistic. I think we agree there.

Not many people would openly say that poor people deserve to be poor. Those aren't the words that the parent commenter used, and maybe that wasn't even the intention. But this line of thinking can encourage people who feel this way, by giving their feelings a moral justification.

All I mean is, we should be empathetic toward people who have fewer resources than we do, and not be too quick to credit our accomplishments to our virtuous living.