Ageism in Contemporary Retirement: A Philosophical Argument

Abstract

This paper argues that the compulsory retirement policy in Thai government and in Thai academia is an ageist discrimination. It presumes the standard age at which point people cross over and become “elders.” The state then assumes that all “elders” have the same characteristics and the same capability for work. The compulsory retirement policy shows that the state and universities assume people of a certain age are less capable than themselves a year before and less capable than younger people. This policy assumes that all types of jobs are the same. It treats fire-fighters, police officers, military officers, surgeons, pilots and air traffic-controllers the same way it treats intellectuals in academia. The matter is even more confusing when some of the professions are exempt from the rules, without apparent reason at all. Supreme court judges, state attorneys, state officers under the management of the royal office, and royal guards are not subject to the same compulsory retirement rule. This paper explains how some workers, academic philosophers for example, are more capable and more skilled as they age, thus the stereotype about “old age” is both arbitrary and unsound. This paper is philosophical in nature, analyzing concepts and evaluating the logical consistency of an argument. It concludes that compulsory retirement is an act of discrimination and is therefore inconsistent with the principle of equality, the principle that lies at the heart of liberal democracy itself.