The Inequality Taboo

Charles Murray writes a compelling article about the inequality taboo at: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murray0905.html

I have (a few) issues with his arguments but, before discussing these, let’s get the main problem out of the way. It is well known that Charles Murray is [insert the derogatory personal characteristic of your choice here] and so anyone who considers his arguments seriously is [insert a another derogatory personal characteristic of your choice here] and must be ostracised. (Those struggling to come up with two different and original derogatory characteristics can seek appropriate advice and guidance at alt.feminism where an ‘ism’ or ‘ist’ can be selected from the many on offer. Irrational hate and ostracism are, after all, most rewarding when practiced as a group.)

So, with the bigoted now clicking elsewhere, we can get back to the topic at hand. On this, Murray writes:
Quote:
Elites throughout the West are living a lie, basing the futures of their societies on the assumption that all groups of people are equal in all respects. Lie is a strong word, but justified. It is a lie because so many elite politicians who profess to believe it in public do not believe it in private. It is a lie because so many elite scholars choose to ignore what is already known and choose not to inquire into what they suspect. We enable ourselves to continue to live the lie by establishing a taboo against discussion of group differences.
The taboo arises from an admirable idealism about human equality. If it did no harm, or if the harm it did were minor, there would be no need to write about it. But taboos have consequences.
:EndQuote

I see nothing admirable about an ideal of human equality, other than men’s equality before the law. At its most essential it is difference that makes the universe, equality is non-existence. If everything is equal then nothing discernable exists. Equality is the philosophical mantra of nihilism. Murray’s notes illustrate the nonsense of applying this notion of equality to human gender:
Quote:
… try a thought experiment: Suppose that a pill exists that, if all women took it, would give them exactly the same mean and variance on every dimension of human functioning as men—including all the ways in which women now surpass men. How many women would want all women to take it? … To ask such questions is to answer them: hardly anybody. Few want to trade off the unique virtues of their own group for the advantages that another group may enjoy….. A Thai friend gave me an insight into this human characteristic many years ago when I remarked that Thais were completely undefensive about Westerners despite the economic backwardness of Thailand in those days. My friend explained why. America has wealth and technology that Thailand does not have, he acknowledged, just as the elephant is stronger than a human. “But,” he said with a shrug, “who wants to be an elephant?”
:EndQuote

There is nothing admirable about a lie. I regret that, on this point, Murray has fallen into the PC trap he is usually so careful to avoid.

Murray also writes:
Quote:
But if we do not need to change our politics, talking about group differences obligates all of us to renew our commitment to the ideal of equality that Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he wrote as a self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Steven Pinker put that ideal in today’s language in The Blank Slate, writing that “Equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group.”
:EndQuote

It wasn’t even that of course. It was the old tenet of men’s equality before the law that governed them. When the American constitution was written no-one imagined that it would be so distorted as to justify total equality between men and women, in every walk of life.

As far as individuals being constrained by average properties, we all are. Its part of being a functioning group. We rail against the poverty divide and demand that the average constrains the extreme in that respect. And there are natural realities, such as the benefits of specialisation and the law of comparative advantage, that need to be considered dispassionately in this context too. If a community benefits overwhelmingly from specialisation then that fact needs to be recognised if the community is to be as successful as it can be. We all cope with our own natural strengths and weaknesses, and gain strength from each other’s, what crippling immaturity does society suffer that it can not cope with difference’s broader consequences? The confusion of better/worse with good/bad reflects the mindset of a child. A mindset that any caring parent works to correct, not reinforce.

Finally what Murray does not discuss at all are the forces that gave rise to the deeply unnatural western social philosophies of the second half of the 20th century. We need to understand these better so that we can recognise and avoid them in the future. Many will blame feminism, there is such an obvious correlation. Are they right to do so? If yes, what does that imply about the role of women in the political life of a community? What must we do differently in the future? We need to discuss this subject objectively too.