I don't disagree, but the next question is a sort of " so what?" How should we judge/react to those with no abnormal hindrances?
It's not just that they have 'no abnormal hindrances'. They do have things going for them that others - others who, strictly speaking, are also 'functioning normally' - don't have.
Take 'white privilege', for instance. I know that's a term that rubs some people the wrong way, but bear with me. White privilege doesn't mean what some people seem to think it means. It doesn't mean that if you're white, then you are destined for great things, and there can be no 'unearned' disadvantages in your life that make it difficult or impossible for you to shine (logical corrollary: if you're white and you do not attain success in life, you have only yourself to blame - NOT TRUE. Or the reverse: if you're black or brown and you don't shine, it's only due to racism - ALSO NOT TRUE). However, if you're white, then given both history and current realities, you have one fewer 'unearned' obstacle to overcome than someone who is black or brown, but otherwise identical to you. People don't choose the color of their skin, and they can't change it through their actions, but it represents a variable that does affect the opportunities open to them, and (especially) the ease with which they will be able to access and take full advantage of those opportunities.
It's the same with biological sex, intelligence (largely inherited, and the part that is not usually comes from growing up in the 'right' environment and getting the 'right' K-12 education that you didn't choose for yourself), general good health, athleticism, etc. Of those, I would say only athleticim is dependent on personal effort to a large extent. But even so. As I said before, some people are born with (physical) limitations that no amount of effort can sufficiently compensate for to make military service an option. And some are born with disadvantages that CAN be compensated for with effort, but then, it means they had a much bigger hill to climb than some others, in getting to their goal (in this case: a service academy appointement).
Keeping all of that in mind, here's my answer to your question: privilege, to my mind, should not primarily affect how *others* look at those with privilege. It should primarily affect how those with (and without) privilege look at themselves. The privileged should keep in mind that they did *not* attain their position in life through 'personal effort' alone. To varying degrees, they were also (very) lucky. Knowing that, and believing it in their core, is important especially if they're going to be the leaders of people who drew a worse lot in life. Because it means they will be able to better value and appreciate the contributions of those below them on the totem pole, who may not have the rank or the paychek to prove it, but who probably traveled a road at least as challenging, and very probably more so, than the officers who lead them. On the flip side, being aware (and convinced) that many of their leaders had advantages in life that they didn't, will allow those who lacked those advantages to hold their heads high, despite never having been to a service academy, not being an officer, or even: not having served in the military at all, despite perhaps the desire to do so.
In other words: awareness of privilege should lead to humility in the more privileged, and to pride in the less privileged. For some people, given where they started, just staying alive is an accomplishment, and anything more is pure heroism. While for others, anything less than being a leader represents a squandering of the advantages they were born with, through no effort of their own.
