Here is my reply:

Thank you so much for your thoughtful response, Rob. Our blog desperately needs dialogue with differing views–both for balance and for interest. And all of us desperately need dialogue with differing views for mere sanity. That said, though, I agree with much of what you say here. But I still maintain that equality should not be considered an end in itself.

My goal with this essay was not to argue that equality is never proper or good or even requisite. It sometimes is all of those things. My goal was to show that it is never the fundamental good that is at issue in any context, and that it is illegitimate to think of it as a fundamental good. My description of it as “a false ideal” may be a little strong, but the strong formulation is intended to grab the attention.

What do I mean by a “fundamental good”? I would say that there are two types of fundamental goods Continue reading →

My friend and cousin, Rob Blair, posted this thoughtful rebuttal of my article on Facebook. I repost here with his permission, my response to follow soon. Thank you, Rob!

The “equality of discernment” argument is not one made by any who espouse equality as a political or philosophical value. It is, in my experience, exclusively a straw-man argument, popularized by Ayn Rand.

To say that the race justification of slavery was a secondary evil is problematic. It is that institutionalization that caused continued damage and disadvantage to members of that race. Further, debating which was more evil (the terrible treatment or the way it narrativized an entire race of people in a way that would continue to be destructive to that race in the centuries to come) is rather besides the point. There is no reason we need to choose which one is more important; they are both fundamentally wrong and both deserve attention, consideration, and resolution.

I don’t agree with your premise that equality is not an end to itself. Continue reading →

“Liberty, equality, fraternity!”: the equality sandwich served up by the French revolutionaries. The outer terms were there mainly because the meat—like the French laborers—needed bread for support. “Equality” seemed to them infinitely more palatable when surrounded by such fine-sounding terms as “liberty” and “fraternity;” airy yet substantial, like a baguette. But the essence of the Revolution was that the Nobles and Royals and Priests were to be pulled down, and the People elevated.

Tastes have changed, and perhaps grossened, since those guillotine days; we now find “equality!” palatable as an entrée unto itself. Most contemporary people seem to take it for granted that equality, in and of itself, is a worthy goal. In our zeal for “equality!” we have eschewed all varieties of discrimination. But some types of discrimination can be a very good thing—for example, the types that are synonymous with “discernment” or “good taste.” Continue reading →