The Tyranny of Equality

Part 4: Equality Redefined

What were our Founders referring to when they wrote:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….”

How could they say all men are created equal?  Its obvious, human beings are not created equal.  Some are smart, while others are mentally challenged, some are athletic, others are klutzes, some are good looking, other plain, some have a sunny disposition, others are prone to depression, some are born into wealth, others into poverty, and this list could go on for ever.  Clearly, in this regard, all men are not created equal so what was Thomas Jefferson referring to when he wrote the Declaration of Independence?  He was referring to what philosophers call, “Universal" or "Formal Equality.”  “Formal” refers to the essence of a thing, that is, its Form and this idea harkens back to Plato and Aristotle.  Let’s take just a little time to discuss what is really an important philosophical debate that has been taking place for the past twenty-five hundred years. 

Realism vs. Nominalism

In all our perceiving and thinking we find a twofold content.  We find throughout our experience singular and general elements in intimate union. We perceive this book, that person; but the book is also a book, the person a person.  Every item to which we direct our attention is an instance of a class or kind.  To use medieval terms it is an instance of a species.  But the common features in particular objects can be attended to in detachment from the features perceived by the senses.  To attend to the common elements in abstraction from sensibly perceived objects is to think.

The mark of a Universal is the presence of elements which appear in a number of things or events numerically distinct.  It is an identity in difference.  And since there is identity in difference throughout the scale of experience, universals comprehend the whole range of apprehension and reflection.  An inquiry into the nature of universals will embrace the problem of substance, the unity of attributes in things, and even the validity of science.  It is an inquiry into the veracity of human thinking.

Universals are extramental, that is, they exists independent of our knowledge of them.  Mathematics clearly demonstrates this. Straight lines, perfect circles, and pi “exist” even though they are not and cannot not be observed by the senses since they do not exist in the physical realm.  Plato and Aristotle both insisted that they are not inventions of our mind but fundamental constituents of reality although their approach to ascertaining these universal were different. And besides mathematical ideals there are norms of beauty and goodness and they too are extramental, timeless, and beyond change.  Universals are said to subsist in existant things.  This philosophical understanding became known as Realism. 

Christianity adopted and adapted these philosophical concepts in the doctrine of the Trinity (“the Son is consubstantial with the Father”), its understanding of human nature (made in the “image and likeness” of God, that is, sharing the “substance” of the divine), its understanding of the Eucharist (transubstantiation), and that the human virtues were a participation in the eternal and universal attributes of God. 

From the very beginning, there were those who rejected the notion of Universals including Democritus, the Sophist Gorgias, and the Epicureans.  Even so, the “anti-universal” school received little traction so that the philosophical of Universals became embedded into Western thought, culture, and civilization.  It didn’t not receive a significant challenge until the later Middle Ages with the philosophies of Roscelin of Compiegne and Peter Abaelard.  They proposed that Universals are concepts and propositions and do not express reality.  What they express are various forms of assertion determined by the rules of grammar and by arbitrary meanings.  Language does not express things as they are, for it names wholes of things, whereas in reality there are only indivisible sensible entities, which do not compose the wholes named by terms.  And just as it regards the distinction of parts within an individual as purely subjective, so this theory considers the totality of several individuals as an arbitrary collection.  Accordingly, general ideas, universals, are merely names, nomina, and even noises, flatus vocis.  The common nature which they assert is wholly subjective.  Universale est vox. 

According to what would become known as Nominalism only particulars exist, there are no subsistant universals which are only “word” and human constructions.  In the philosophical war between Realism and Nominalism the Roman Catholic Church was the principal champion of Realism as it recognized that Nominalism would undermine Christian theology and doctrine as well as the civil order in that the Natural Law presupposes universals that are common among all people.  As the Church began to lose its influence, Nominalism began to reassert itself, particularly during the Enlightenment and thereafter.  Realism has certainly not died out as it continues to be an epistemological tool in most religions, especially Christianity.  Science, which has its historical and philosophical roots in Christianity, is a Realist epistemology.  Science endeavors to discover the universals within a class of objects or phenomena.  For example, Cell Theory, advanced in the 19th century proposed that all living things are made of cells and Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation carries its prima facia Realism even in its name.  Science could not have developed or have functioned within a nominalistic epistemology.  [For more discussion on this topic you can read my outline Realism vs. Nominalism.]

Now let’s return to our discussion of what the Founders meant by “… all men are created equal….” The fact that they were using the term “equality” with respect to all men, indicates that they were taking a Realist position.  They were claiming that there was a universal equality that subsisted in all people.  They based this belief upon the Realist tradition not only of the Academy of Athens (Plato and Aristotle), but on Christianity which made the bold claim:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”  (Gal 3:28)

Universal Equality recognizes our shared humanity.  The Founding documents recognize this in the Declaration.  However, the Constitutions barely mentions equality at all and only once in a way that is appropriate to this discussion.  In Amendment 14 section 1 states that citizens are to enjoy “equal protection of the laws.” This, of course, has been the subject of much debate over the past several decades   Other than this the Founding Documents are silent.  

The Progressive rejects this Universal Equality because of a priori assumptions of Skepticism, Relativism, and Scientism.  Skepticism takes the position that even if universal do exist, our epistemologies are insufficient to identify them with certainty.  Relativism, by its very definition, rejects the idea of universals.  Scientism, which is materialistic, rejects the idea of subsistent realities (perhaps with the exception of mathematics), although Science minus the assumption of materialism need not reject subsistent universals.   Progressives are modern day Nominalists, believing that only “particulars” exist and ideas often regarded as “universal” such as equality, justice, love, beauty, goodness are merely conventions and can and indeed must evolve as humanity evolves.  For the Realist “words” are an attempt to describe a reality that is; for the Nominalists words become reality and as we change the meaning of words we likewise change the reality they express.

A current day example of this is the debate regarding the institution of marriage.  For the Christian Realist, “marriage” is more than a word.  It is a term that describes a subsistent reality that was created by God whereby one man and one woman dedicate themselves to each other before God and community to bring forth children (if that be God’s will for them) thus forming a family, a microcosm of the divine life and the community of humanity.  As a subsistent reality it is universal, eternal, and unchangeable. For the Progressive Nominalist, “marriage” is just a word, a convention created by people and therefore changeable as people see fit.  As such, it is relative, temporal, and must evolve as humanity evolves.  These are the philosophical roots of this debate.  Understanding this might not necessarily cause us to change our ideas, but it might help us not to vilify each other.

So, for the Progressive Nominalist, there are no Universals only Particulars.  There is no Universal Equality, only Particular Equality.  Each person is their own unique “particular” individual and equality between individuals can only be authentic if they manifest particularly, that is, materially, circumstantially, and socially.

Material Equality

To understand material equality we must first consider what constitutes the “material” content of an individual’s life.  Materialism constitutes the individual’s genetic makeup, and its physiological and psychological expression.  At first blush it would seem that material equality would be an impossibility, but a study of the history of Progressivism reveals that there was a profound commitment to achieving material equality.  The Progressives of the early twentieth century pinned their hopes for material equality on eugenics and legalized abortion. During this time, notable Progressives such as biologist/eugenicist Charles Davenport, Margaret Sanger (foundress of Planned Parenthood), H.G. Wells (author), Teddy Roosevelt (President), George Bernard Shaw (playwrite/economist), John Maynard Keynes (economist), and Oliver Wendell Holmes (Supreme Court Justice) supported programs that sought:

“…to check the birth rate of the unfit instead of allowing them to come into being…the second object is the improvement of the race by furthering the productivity of the fit by early marriages and the healthful rearing of children.” (Francis Galton, half-cousin of Charles Darwin).

To this end a number of programs were implemented, but the most insidious of these resulted in the forced sterilization of over 60,000 Americans by state governments. 

Hitler and the Nazi’s and their quest for creating the Arian Race (at the expense of the mentally and physically disabled, homosexuals, political opponents, and six million Jews) pushed the eugenic aspirations of the Progressives underground, but it is still alive a well and increasingly out in the open.  Consider the following quotes:

"No newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment, and that if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live.”

"Chimeras [human-animal crossbreads] or parahumans might legitimately be fashioned to do dangerous or demeaning jobs. As it is now, low-grade work is shoved off on moronic and retarded individuals, the victims of uncontrolled reproduction. Should we not program such workers 'thoughtfully' instead of accidentally, by means of hybridization?"

Extraordinary, don’t you think.  I won’t disguise my astonishment at the boldness of these eugenicist’s statements.  I think you’ll be even more surprised at who made these statements.  The first statement was made by Dr. Francis Crick, the co-discover of the structure of DNA.  The second statement belongs to Harvard University Professor, Dr. Joseph Fletcher.  Don’t recognize the name?  He is considered by many to be the “patriarch of bioethics.”  You can’t make this stuff up.

On the other side of life one often finds Progressives endorsing euthanasia.  As Professor of History, Dr. Ian Dowbiggin stated in A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America:

“Progressives not only became receptive to previously heretical ideas such as eugenics and euthanasia, but also increasingly disposed to interpret euthanasia as a form of social control.  Progressives often view euthanasia as a public health measure designed to minimize the cost of supporting disadvantaged groups, improve the welfare of future generations, and reconstitute the basis for an enduring social order.”

Such positions are indeed antithetical to Judeo-Christian values, but not to Progressivism.  The Universal Equality of Judeo-Christian Tradition is the Common Denominator shared among all humanity; it is shared by the unborn child in the womb and the infirm who is seemingly of no benefit to society.  This is not a “least common denominator, but the greatest common denominator because it is the “image” of God endowed to every human being.  Progressives reject this.  They hold that what makes human life valuable are an individual’s “particularities” and potential for “valued” particularities.  A child in the womb possesses no particularities that give it value other than that bestowed by the will of the mother.  A child with a genetic or chromosomal defect has even less “value” because it has dramatically impaired potential for particular values.  Is it any wonder that there are vastly fewer children born with Down’s Syndrome, not because they are not being conceived, but because they are routinely aborted.  The Progressive, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the principal architects of the Affordable Care Act, said he wants to be dead by his 75th birthday as the elderly are “feeble, ineffectual and pathetic.”  This is another way of saying that they have lost their “particular” value and are therefore no longer worthy of life.  Our founders recognized that the basis of our fundamental right to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” comes from the premise that “all Men are created equal.”  Universal Equality is the only guarantor of Life.

Circumstantial Equality:

Circumstantial equality goes beyond our material makeup and it begins as early as in utero.  A child in the womb might be the next Olympic athlete and Nobel Prize winning scientist, but if his mother doesn’t eat right during pregnancy, drinks, or smokes crack than the unborn child finds himself in circumstances where he will unlikely be able to fulfill his genomic potential.  I think we all can agree that intervention is necessary.  A bit later on I’ll discuss how we differ with respect to intervention.

Assuming the child makes it safely out of the womb it will still find itself in vastly unequal circumstances with respect to his peers.  He may come into the world with two parents, maybe one, his family may be wealthy or poor, educated or uneducated, adequate or inadequate nutrition, access to health care or lack there of, perhaps there is drug or other forms of abuse in the family, and this list could go on almost ad infinitum. There is also the neighborhood and the culture into which that the child grows up. Then as the child grows up and goes to preschool, and K-12 will she go to a good school with good teachers and resources?  How is the environment in the school?  Is it safe, caring, rigorous, holds students to high academic standards; are the students given opportunities to be creative?  Can it adjust its curriculum to her particular academic, social, and emotional needs?  If the school cannot provide these needs does she have access to go to another school that can?  When she graduates from High School will she be competitive with other students in her application to college or the job market?

These are just some of the variables that we, as a society, would need to address if we sought to achieve Circumstantial Equality.  Even if we could I’ve left out the most important factor—the will of the student.  Students can simply say no to the efforts of families, and teachers and choose their own paths.  Reasonable people in education recognize this and rightly set a potentially more achievable goal of “Equal Opportunity,” although even this is problematic and sometimes good intentions often have unintended consequences.

This is something I can speak to having been a public secondary teacher for thirty years.  For example, a few years back the well intending School Board of the Los Angeles Unified School District set a goal that every student graduating from one of its high schools should be qualified to enter a University of California University—a worthy goal of creating Equal Opportunity for its students.  The unintended consequence was that I had overcrowded classes with students not even remotely prepared, and yet enrolled in my Chemistry classes.  Many of the students were incapable of doing basic math.  Most of these students didn’t want to be there, had no intention of going to a UC, and decided at the on set that they weren’t even going to try.  Every teacher knows this is a recipe for disaster. When I went to the head counselor regarding this problem his suggestion was that this is what the bosses want so just “leave out the math part.”  I explained that such a class would not be chemistry and it certainly would not make the UC ready.  Seems as though the School Board were taking the classic nominalist position—words are reality, saying that all LAUSD students would be UC ready should be sufficient, but in the real world students (and teachers) suffer.

Affirmative Action is another program established in an attempt to rectify Circumstantial Inequality.  I suspect that there are many who have benefited from these programs.  But, there are inevitably unintended negative consequences.  If I may quote from a resource of the The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commision:

“The issue for most Americans is fairness: Should the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment be used to advance the liberty of one class of individuals for good reasons when that action may infringe on the liberty of another?”

As a Libertarian I believe there is no justification for the state to advance the liberty of one class over another.  However, I do believe that the “free association” clause (“the right of the people peaceably to assemble”) of the First Amendment of the Constitution ought to allow private institutions and organizations to advance the opportunities of a particular group.  I will have more to say about free association in the final section of this essay.

There is a host of other Circumstantial Equality issues that could be discussed here such as Wealth and Income Inequality, but more often than not they have their origin in families.  The Progressive Philosopher, Adam Swift, commented on a study that indicated that parents who read bedtime stories to their children are giving them an unfair advantage over those who don’t:

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally.” 

While Dr. Swift is not in favor of making the reading of bedtime stories illegal (as of now), he absolutely believes that children should not be allowed to attend elite private schools:

“It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realize these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school…we could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to elite family relationships.”

It is only logical to assume that this would also apply to “elite” public Magnet and Charter schools. It is difficult to imagine that our culture could get to this place, but guilt is a “good” place for the Progressive to start, I suppose.  Guilt can be an effective modifier of behavior, hence the famous (or infamous) Catholic Guilt.  Perhaps Progressive guilt of not living up to their egalitarian ideals (as in Progressive politicians sending their children to elite private schools) will eventually lead them to agree with the long-term vision of Dr. Swift:

“One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.”   

Remember, it takes a village to raise a child and a state to make them equal.

Read more at: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/new-family-values/6437058

Social Equality:

In a Nominalistic society there are no Universals.  Each one of us can define ourselves as we see fit.  There are no longer standards of gender, or how or with whom we choose to associate with (providing they are adult and consenting).  As of June 27, 2014 Facebook offered 71 different gender choices to United Kingdom users (at the same time, US users had 50—why?).  When Universals are rejected and only Particulars exist it seems to me that 71 genders are rather paltry.  With over 7 billion people on the planet there could logically be over 7 billion genders.  I’m not trying to be dismissive or sarcastic, just logical.  Are these genders biological or a choice?  Again, in a Nominalistic society that question really is no longer relevant. Then there is the issue of how a person seeks to form relationship with others given this amorphous and multiplicitious self-identification.  Are these relationships equal in Social status as that of traditional marriage between a single man and a single woman?  Do these associations need to be limited to two people?  If so, why?  After all, isn’t limiting marriage to “two” a form of universal?  What are the consequences for the children that may result from these associations?  What is the consequence to the society?  Now that the state acknowledges the legitimacy of these relationships by granting them equal status to that of traditional marriage does this mean that a private individual, business, or religion must also recognize them—bake them a cake, so to speak? If so, then more laws, rules, and regulations are going to need to be passed and again the quote from earlier is relevant:

“The issue for most Americans is fairness: Should the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment be used to advance the liberty of one class of individuals for good reasons when that action may infringe on the liberty of another?”

We shall see how the LGBT community responds to the advancement of their Liberty by the Supreme Court. Will they employ the power of the state to impose their "nominalist" view upon those who continue to hold the "realist" understanding of marriage, or more simply will traditionalists be forced to "bake them a cake?" Are traditionalists who continue to hold to the values of Athens and Jerusalem now to become the Western version of dhimmis, marginalized and outside of the benefits and protection of the Constitution? 

To achieve Particular Equality demands an aggressive agenda.  This agenda is greatly responsible for the growth in government, and concomitantly its laws, rules, and regulations.  Progressives still talk about the “Common Good” as the reason for the necessary increase is regulations. As we have seen, however, they reject the notion of something “Common” or Universal to all people.  Furthermore, for the Progressive there is no transcendent Good to seek or a Natural Law that mitigates Liberty through personal responsibility.  The Progressive rejects statements such as, “Freedom is not the right to do what one wants, but to do what one ought,”  because there is no “ought.”  Freedom is the right to do what one wants provided it is with a consenting adult.  All else falls into the domain of the “Common Good,” which has evolved into “Particular Good ” and the Law that is its guarantor.  There is no morality apart from that which upholds Particular Good.  Law and morality therefore become synonymous and the Progressive state become a secular Sharia state.

Next: Progressive Inclinations