**Should society reward people according to their talent, effort, achievements or contribution? And is a truly meritocratic society necessarily a fair one?** Most of us instinctively believe that the best person should get the job, that hard work should be rewarded, and that success should be earned rather than handed out. But when we examine these assumptions more closely, things become considerably more complicated. Is it fair that someone born with exceptional intelligence or natural talent should enjoy greater rewards than someone who works twice as hard but achieves less? Can we really claim to live in a meritocracy when people begin life with vastly different advantages and opportunities? And should society prioritise excellence and efficiency, even when doing so produces greater inequality? The growing emphasis on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) raises further questions. Should employers always select the most capable candidate, regardless of background or identity? Or can considerations of representation and historical disadvantage sometimes justify a different approach? Are fairness and meritocracy competing ideals, or can they complement one another? Join us as we explore some of the fundamental questions surrounding **merit, justice, equality** and the kind of society we ought to create. Among the questions we'll consider: * What actually constitutes merit: natural ability, hard work, achievement or contribution to society? * Do successful people truly deserve their success, or does luck play a greater role than we care to admit? * Should competence and efficiency always take precedence over fairness and equality? * Does DEI undermine meritocracy, or can it help create a more genuinely meritocratic society? * Should those who contribute more to society receive greater rewards? *Suppose a society could increase overall prosperity by 30%, but only by creating significantly greater inequality.* *Would that be a desirable society?* **Ultimately, should

Description supplied by the event organiser.