How the “good” kind of equality leads to mass murder
October 8, 2012 § 21 Comments
In this post I am going to talk about the “equality” that Christians refer to when we say things like “all people have equal dignity”.
I am not talking about the political concept of “equal rights.” “Equal rights” is much more obviously problematic, because a “right” is an exclusive discriminating authority while the “equal” part demands that, in the name of freedom, we don’t authoritatively discriminate. This forms the incoherent foundation of the political philosophy of liberalism, which is the political philosophy to which all respectable modern people are loyal, and to which respectable people pay tribute in civic ritual. This is the sort of equality that leads to dehumanizing certain kinds of people as a prelude to rights-based mass murder like abortion and euthanasia, and to other rights-based atrocities like the medical cannibalization we call “embryonic stem cell research.” It also leads people to mutilate their bodies and engage in in-your-face sodomy as a way of expressing their freedom and autonomy. The fact that this sort of equality can be interpreted as vacuous to neuter its incoherence doesn’t really help, as a practical matter. People like their core ideas to have consequences, so any interpretation of “equal rights” as a mere token without these consequences is inherently unstable when situated in an actual reality, even though it may be benign and vestigial in theory.
That’s not what I’m talking about.
When Christians use the term “equal dignity” we aren’t referring to politics, or to temporal authority or status relationships. “Equal dignity” is a token that is intended to represent the fact that human beings have – every human being has – intrinsic value and moral inviolability qua human being. As a practical moral consequence there are things we should and should not do to/for any and every human being. As a deontological matter each and every human being belongs to God, not to us, and must never be treated as mere objects or as nothing but a means to our own ends. Moral judgement as pertains to acts are our duty to make; moral judgement of the final destination of souls is beyond our ken (for which I, personally, am deeply thankful).
This is a crucial truth about Man, and we could use any invented token as a convenient representation of that truth. “Equal dignity” happens to be, in my view, a particularly unfortunate choice of token.
The reason “equal dignity” is an unfortunate token is because it carries with it an implication of commensurability, when in fact the objects to which it applies – persons – are incommensurable. Equal numbers are commensurable. Equal numbers of apples are commensurable. Equal numbers of dollars or man hours are commensurable. Equal numbers of anything at all are commensurable: this commensurability is indeed the very point of the term “equal”. Yet incommensurability is a core element of the truth that the underlying concept of “equal dignity” represents. The question “which of your children do you love most” doesn’t really have an answer, because love is not a quantitative concept. In a twist of Screwtapian linguistic irony Christians have selected a modern, utilitarian, quantitative term to represent a concept which rejects modern, utilitarian, quantitative anthropology.
I wonder if supposed moral dilemmas like the trolley problem, with their tendency to beg the question of utilitarianism, would carry as much force with Christians if we weren’t using inherently utilitarian terms of commensurability like “equality”. I wonder how much less appeal the numbers games people play with the casualties of the Hiroshima massacre and WWII would have if we adopted non-utilitarian language. I wonder if modern people could even come to understand non-utilitarian language, as embedded as the assumptions of materialist utilitarianism have become in our collective psyche.
When it comes to question-begging utilitarian language, modernity has no equal.
[…] ”Equal rights” is justice to the liberal mindset, despite the fact that it reduces the incommensurable value of human beings to utilitarian calculation, setting itself against nature and nature’s God. Universal suffrage voting is the sin qua […]
[…] is a pretty lie because it pretends to assert commensurability with respect to incommensurable things. When we give up on the idea of equality though it is tempting to replace it with the idea of […]
[…] herself: the fact that women can become pregnant but men cannot. This is a basic violation of equality: a double standard. So women must be allowed to […]
[…] or modernist understanding of reality. It isn’t just that stereotypes imply inherent inequalities among groups of people, although they certainly do that. And it isn’t just that a […]
[…] with the difference between pity and contempt, because to be “in” society at all just is to be equal. To egalitarian modernity anyone who isn’t an equal isn’t anyone at […]
[…] – and most modern self-identified “conservatives” have strong loyalties to liberalism, disagreeing with other liberals and more radical leftists mainly about the details of policies and […]
[…] because the mere existence of nonconsensual authority/hierarchy violates the core liberal tenet of equality – liberalism creates a world in which nothing but abuse is […]
[…] Libertarian/liberal/leftist ideologues are always trying to maintain frame, such that their active murders and other atrocities can be viewed as mere passivity: a ‘more rights less government’ passivity resting on the principle of equal freedom. […]
[…] the advice I am giving her — (1) stop getting screwed by the sociopath and (2) repent of your liberalism — is still the very best practical advice, beyond “repent your sins […]
[…] Sure there are acts, certain intrinsically immoral behaviours, which clearly offend against chastity and are always morally wrong under all circumstances. But those acts are hardly the only offenses against the virtue of chastity. Chastity is not a virtue that lends itself to realpolitik and compromise, any more than wifely submission is something that lends itself to selective rebellion: compromised chastity just is inchastity. The slutty Christian woman may rationalize the escalation of her hemline (as long as she doesn’t actually fornicate or commit adultery, thereby achieving the Minimum Adult Daily Requirement of chastity) as a kind of realpolitik adaptation to practical realities; and since society is being deliberately (though futilely) reconstructed by liberalism to be ever more androgynous this traditionally difficult area for women has become more difficult for men also, as one of the fruits of equality. […]
[…] only kind) proposes that legitimate authority is nothing but what promotes and protects freedom and equal rights: other kinds of “authority” may exist in a non-normative sense, but they (contra […]
[…] This misunderstands the nature of liberalism from the get-go, since there are no free societies and equal rights is a self contradictory concept. So there is no “Freedom vs Equality” trade off to begin with as something distinct […]
[…] Liberalism is a two-horned political beast, and the equality horn gets attacked by reactionaries regularly. (More power to them). […]
[…] with just different labels being used, and thus was lying about its commitment to freedom and equal rights. Catholic positivists will tell you that sure, naturalism is false philosophically, but doing […]
[…] (“sola” in Latin) should automatically raise suspicion, every bit as much as the words “equality” and “freedom“. As with most of these terms in the context of weaponized […]
[…] among the noobs is that Cthulu’s leftward swim is fueled by progressive insistence on equality. This is at best only a half […]
[…] So the only universal that liberalism allows to manifest itself is equality of rights: equal freedom. It therefore distorts the universal dignity of being human as such into something inhuman and destructive. […]
[…] which makes freedom a political priority, thereby creating an implicit or explicit demand for equal rights, insisting on rule that pretends not to rule in order to protect the fragile individualistic egos […]
[…] Equal rights impose a ‘live and let live’ philosophy formally and comprehensively on every person and institution in the name of tolerance, authoritatively discriminating everywhere that is necessary in order to eliminate discrimination and authority. […]
[…] the equality at the foundations of liberalism is equality of rights among the superman. Failure to specify that what is explicitly and unequivocally repudiated is […]
[…] Related Reading: How the “good kind” of equality leads to mass murder. […]