Living with inequality: Ten principles

Inequality is the rule in nature. We should learn to live with it.

Written by Bo Winegard.

Natural selection is driven by variation. Plants, animals, humans. No two are alike. This is a source of joy when we admire the variegated beauty of nature. But it is often a source of moral consternation when we reflect on ourselves. We do not agonize over the fact that some butterflies are more attractive than others; some cheetahs faster than others; some chimpanzees stronger than others. But we do care that some human beings are smarter, more attractive, more desirable. And we especially care that some groups are.

Indeed, many of us find it unsettling, as though it were a flaw in the cosmos itself, that individuals, sexes and races differ in ways that shape life outcomes. But as wisdom literature has long observed, nature does not conform to our sense of fairness. The sun shines indifferently on birth and death, triumph and tragedy. We may try to shield children from this unpleasant truth, but a mature society cannot be built on the denial of reality.

I have spoken and written about human variation for many years, including about race differences. Online, this often provokes hysteria and personal attacks; in person, it more often elicits worry, reflection and genuine concern. “If some differences are real,” people ask, “what follows? How should we live with them?”

These questions are understandable. For many, poetic declarations about human equality have hardened into a belief in literal sameness of talent, character and potential. It is not enough, for them, that laws be just. The cosmos itself must be just as well. Anyone who challenges this expectation is treated as if violating a sacred religious dogma. And when people first confront the idea that human populations might not be equal, the experience can resemble a kind of disillusionment. It feels like losing the faith of one’s childhood. Bewildering, unsettling, and almost morally transgressive.

But recognizing that human traits are not uniformly distributed is not an act of juvenile rebellion. It may even be a step toward a more mature, and more tolerant, understanding of humanity. An understanding that does not attribute every hardship to racism or sexism, nor every failure to some imagined moral defect in the individual. An understanding that does not pretend that hard work, goodwill or more schooling can eliminate all differences in talent, temperament or inclination. An understanding that sees the human world as it actually is, rather than as we wish it to be. Ten principles follow.

Variation is the rule. Variation is the raw material of evolution, and humans individuals, sexes, and races differ from one another just as plants and animals do.

Individuals differ in almost every measurable and immeasurable dimension. Some people are taller, faster, more intelligent or more pain-tolerant; others are shorter, slower, less intellectually gifted or less resilient. These differences have obvious social consequences. Some men effortlessly attract desirable partners; others do not. Some women can sing like Adele; others cannot stay in tune. The traits a person displays may be moral achievements, the product of arduous effort and discipline, but the genetic potential behind them is not. It is random. As Clint Eastwood’s character says in Unforgiven, “deserve’s got nothing to do with it.” The most talented people may be kind or they may be crude; they may be thoughtful or they may be selfish.

Sexes are different. Like all sexually reproducing animals, humans are sexually dimorphic. The physical differences are obvious. On average, men are larger and stronger; women are smaller, rounder and capable of bearing children. Psychological differences are subtler but consistent. Men and women show different average patterns of interest, temperament and behavior. Men are also overrepresented at the extremes of the trait distribution. As with individual differences, these sex differences have obvious social consequences. Men are overrepresented in STEM fields but also in prison. Women are overrepresented in nursing and childcare. And so forth.

Races are different. Humans, like other animals, also differ across ancestral populations or races. Some physical differences—skin color, hair texture, facial structure—are obvious. Others like lactose tolerance or disease resistance, are not. And still others are so controversial that they are often denied and suppressed. In the United States and across the globe, races reliably differ in self-control, violent crime rates and cognitive ability. The causes of these differences are disputed, but almost certainly explained by a combination of genetic, cultural and historical forces. As with individual and sex differences, race difference have obvious social consequences. Whites and Asians are overrepresented in fields that are cognitively demanding. Blacks are overrepresented in sports that require explosive movement. And so forth.

Humans were created unequal. Because individuals, sexes and races differ from one another, inequality of outcome is inevitable in any free society. Many thinkers are willing to accept this when speaking about individuals, but hesitate or outright reject it for sexes and races. But it is perhaps more important to accept sex differences and race differences during a time when much of the left insists that any uneven representation must be caused by discrimination. A liberal society, one that protects individual choice and does not coerce people into predetermined roles, will inevitably produce unequal outcomes across sexes and races because they have different interests, histories and capacities. Those who wish to preserve liberalism must be honest about this rather than promoting the erroneous dogma of human sameness.

Individualism is a triumph. In general, individualism is the best organizing principle for a society. Human groups differ, but the central norm of the West is that a person’s fate should be determined by individual talent and character, not by group averages. This remains a noble ideal, and it is entirely compatible with an honest recognition of human inequality. In fact, a candid understanding of human variation may be the best way to preserve individualism. Egalitarianism encourages a pernicious tribalism and an obsession with demographic representation. Individualism flourishes when the reality of human variation is recognized and unequal outcomes are tolerated.

Traditional sex roles were probably wise. Because the sexes are different, traditional sex-roles—general expectations rooted in typical male and female abilities and preferences—are not arbitrary culture inventions but reflections of different traits and tendencies. These norms are likely healthy and need not be rigid or coercive. Exceptions should be allowed, and individual choice respected. Some individuals are anomalies and should have the freedom to defy sex-role expectations. But a society is not irrational or illiberal for acknowledging and encouraging sex-typical patterns in temperament, interest and behavior. In many cases, such norms reduce friction and uncertainty and reflect long-standing human realities rather than oppressive ideology. Sex-roles provide guidance for the young. They will not always be followed, but they should be available. And in their absence, confusion and discontent is likely to grow.

Equality under the law is a noble ideal. Legal equality—not literal equality—is the principle that allows free societies to function despite human differences. We cannot manufacture equal outcomes, but we can uphold impartial rules, due process and equal protection. This ideal is not threatened by natural variation; it is precisely because human beings differ that such norms are indispensable. The indigent man receives his day in court just as the billionaire does. The luck of the genetic lottery neither condemns nor exempts anyone from the law’s reach. Likewise, we should not attempt to alter society to offset every natural inequality. A just order protects opportunity, not uniformity. In such a system, the talented and the diligent will rise by merit rather than manipulation. Success and failure will largely reflect talent and effort.

Race is relevant for immigration. Population (or racial) differences, whether cultural or biological, are relevant when nations consider immigration, demographic trends or broad economic policies. Nations must think in aggregate terms when shaping their long-term futures. Further, individuals inside countries often have ethnic attachments that are morally legitimate. It is not illiberal or xenophobic to want to maintain a country’s dominant ethnic group. But inside a country, where individuals are neighbors, co-workers and citizens, population averages are largely irrelevant. Individual rights, individual talents and individual character prevail. Group statistics are for macro-level planning, not for treating one’s fellow citizens. Some exceptions for profiling of violent crime might be reasonable, but in general, race differences should not affect policy inside the country. And color-blindness is probably wise for politics, even if it is not feasible for individuals.

When speaking of human sexual or racial inequality, prudence is necessary. Norms against racist language are not arbitrary inventions; they reflect an awareness that discussions of group difference can easily be misused to inflame hostility. These topics must be approached cautiously, factually and humanely. For too long, parts of the progressive left responded to difficult scientific questions with suppression rather than debate, provoking understandable resentment. But those who worried about the dangers of casual talk about population differences were not simply moral elitists or progressive crusaders. They understood that racial animosity is easy to arouse and difficult to extinguish. Diversity in the West is now a permanent, unchangeable condition. The task is not to entertain fantasies of ethnically homogeneous states but to learn how to live responsibly with the diversity we have.

In many years of thinking about human variation, I cannot claim great wisdom. But I am more convinced than ever that we must speak honestly about the reality of human inequality. The norm against candor has failed. It has produced a censorious elite on one side and an angry backlash on the other. This was inevitable. The differences among people are too visible, too immediate, too deeply woven into ordinary experience to be denied. Better to acknowledge them—and confront their implications—than to demand that people ignore what is as plain as the weather.

Humans, like all of nature, vary. Some possess uncommon talents; others do not. Some are striking; others are plain. Some think with unusual clarity; others struggle. And yet all are human. In keeping with the best principles of the West, anyone who works hard, obeys the law and contributes in good faith deserves a meaningful place in society. This does not require the fiction that people are equal in talent or temperament. It requires only a commitment to moral decency and the refusal to mistake natural differences for moral verdicts.

Inequality is not only compatible with a just society; it is inevitable. To demand perfect equality is to demand the destruction of excellence and striving. And thus it is to demand the destruction of life itself. For life is striving. And the only equality found on earth is the equality of death. So long as life endures, variation does too.

Bo Winegard is an Editor of Aporia.

---

Support Aporia with a paid subscription:

You can also follow us on Twitter.