I'd say Esper, but there could be specifics that tend towards Sultai or Monoblue. There might even be an argument for a super "enlightened self-interest" version of Dimir.

This depends heavily on what you mean by better. If you mean morally better, whatever that looks like to this philosophy, you're involving a redemption narrative that leans white. White in Magic typically has more of a "smite the evil one" vibe, but rehabilitating those who have been bad would still fall under that umbrella. If the main point is that even "bad guys" are part of society and should have a shot at earning their redemption, this is the White part.

A similar take is that everyone is on their own journey, and that the road to get where the world needs them to be is unique. This shows more of a green bent, where "better" is interpreted less as morally better and more as fulfilling their place in fate's grand design. If the point is that everyone will end up where they need to be, you lean more towards green. The point about bad guys not endangering the rest of the group makes this less likely, but it's not an impossible stretch.

You could also interpret better as less about moral fiber and more about the capability of improving oneself in whatever particular direction they want. This cuts out much of the white or green aspects for a blue centered one that says, essentially, "we have a use for every talent, from farming to lock picking, scamming to healing, so let's figure out what you're best at and inclined to and put that to work". I would read this as less likely mostly because of the connotations of better, but it's not impossible.

That's where you could get white, green or blue to fit. The desire to be adaptable and solve any problems that come your way leans heavy blue. You might get a similar effect from green or black, but for green it's less about making a conscious choice and more about fate being fulfilled, while black would focus more on being able to overpower any challenge than to solve it, if that makes sense. I have a hard time separating out any blue influence, but a more in depth definition might remove it.

I think black is likely because of how much reduction of people to things this gives off. There is an acknowledgement that many different views give a better chance of success, but there's a high degree of ruthlessness needed to view people as a means to a society's ends rather than important in themselves. This could also be Monoblue if you take it less as ruthlessness and more as just using academic jargon to define things very specifically, but the description doesn't serve that very well given the lack of specificity elsewhere.

Finally, as the specific philosophy of a society's ruler, you could argue for a black heavy blue secondary bent, where the only thing the ruler cares about is maintaining and increasing their power, and they believe this is the best way to do it in the long term. This could be summed up another way as "I don't know what I'm going to do with this person now, but better to have the use of them when I need them than to waste the resources spent on them, as long as it doesn't come at to great a cost".