Equality Does Not Make Sense Without Christianity

In the contemporary political arena, the general public most often use the language of human equality. This is evidenced by political advances like pro same-sex marriage advocates' appeal to equality in arguing for their cause. It appears that many speak of equality largely in a materialistic sense (philosophical worldview that believes human beings as mere matter), not in terms of metaphysics. The modern concept of equality historically rose from the Christian philosophy. Without it the concept of equality fails to make sense. To attempt to make sense of it once more, to examine what human equality truly is and to achieve a better understanding of it, is the aim of this piece.

Let us examine how a contemporary person would see human beings as equal by extracting from various modern political platforms:

1.                  People have equal physical and/or intellectual capacities.

2.                 People have equal physical and/or intellectual abilities. 

3.                 People have equal political and/or economic power. 

4.                 People have equal legal rights. 

5.                 People are composed of equal metaphysical substance (soul). 

Now, it is apparent, ranging from same-sex marriage to the institution of socialism, more people appeal to numbers 1 to 4 when dealing with political matters; many do not use the fifth sense of equality for religious arguments are jeered upon in modern politics. Regardless, to have an understanding of equality, one must see to it whether the mentioned criteria make sense.

1) The first sense the notion of equality is used, as it should be self-evident, does not make sense. People do not possess equal physical or intellectual capacities; a healthy man of 30 and a challenged man of 30 have vast physical and intellectual capacities.

2) The second sense the notion of equality is used, like the first, also fails to make sense. One just has to meet with a handful of individuals of one's own gender and age to see that some will be able to solve math problems that some cannot.

3) The third is the primary criterion that people use to argue for their cause. However plausible it may appear, its appearance is but an illusion. Though it is true that all can have defined political and economic potential created by the legal system, it is impossible them to have equal power because of the same reason mentioned in criterion 2.

4) The fourth also fails to make sense in that legal rights are human creations; modern liberal governments create rights as they see fit. A clear example would be this: In an absolute monarchy, there is no such thing as voting right whereas a democracy does. The concept of rights is a mere extension of human desires. It follows that, since legal rights do not exist apart from human beings, it has no authority of establishing true equality. The best legal equality does for us is create an illusion that gives a false sense of equality.

5) The fifth, by presupposing a metaphysical substance, or soul, that exists apart from physical substances that compose our body and our organs, it can be argued that all human beings are equal. Christianity is a perfect example of this view. In Christian theology, all human souls are created in God's likeness, that is to say human beings are to a certain degree capable of what God is capable of. It further teaches that all human souls are created equally in all respects. Only the accidental properties reflected by the perceivable world (place and time of birth, genes, circumstances of growth, etc.) differentiate a soul from another. It follows that, though accidental properties can be vastly dissimilar between different persons, all are equal in a sense that their souls are equal before God. Christianity further teaches that all human souls share the exact same potential: entering godhood by way of purifying their souls so that they reach their full potential in heaven.

Let us gather what has been said and use it to envision a practical case by touching on each criterion. The case to be used is gender equality.

1) It is apparent that two genders are dissimilar in physical capacities. It can, however, make a strong case that genders are equal in a sense that they have equal intellectual capacities. But, however strong the case may be, it cannot account for particularities of a single human being. It cannot be used on other cases that deal with individuals with impartiality, failing to embody true equality.

2) Gender as a whole may be compared to the other. Yet it fails to account for each human being much like the first criterion.

3) A similar argument goes for the third. Power is dependent on one's own particular situation such as legal rights or capital that one possesses, not gender. The third criterion case cannot be used for the cause of gender equality.

4) If legal rights are created by society and are dependent on human existence, then it offers no true equality; genders may be said to be equal in a sovereign state, but it does not have the authority to decide and establish gender equality as an objective mandate. The best laws can do without a divine ordinance is to merely offer an illusion of gender equality.

5) Christianity teaches that all souls - male or female - are created in God's image and in His likeness; both men and women can enter the Kingdom of Heaven through grace. A Christian metaphysical argument, it appears, can provide a way by which we can solidify the argument for gender equality.

     It appears, from what can be seen, the notion of human equality makes sense only when approached from the metaphysical angle, Christianity in particular. When approached materially the case for human equality falls apart.  From what has been said above, it can therefore be concluded that Christianity is a necessary component when attempting to make sense of the concept of human equality.

Emotional Impulse and the Failure of Democracy

"It cannot be repeated too often that nothing is more fertile in prodigies than the art of being free; but there is nothing more arduous than the apprenticeship of liberty." - Alexis de Tocqueville  

When people nowadays where the modernist Western culture now dominates are posed a question as to what type of government is the best form of government, they will cry out: democracy! Democracy is the form of government most of us are raised up in. It is almost in our blood to love democracy; we oftentimes cringe at anything that resembles an elitist form of government like aristocracy or monarchy. It is easily observable how this is so: we readily veer at men like Kim, Putin, and al-Assad. Yet, upon closer examination, democracy we have is not working so well. However we may love democracy, it is inching closer to its failure.

     

     Of the numerous ways by which a regime can fail, a democratic regime that allows the vote of the public always faces the threat of impulsive emotions. To our lament, impulsive emotions are displayed too often within our political environment. One just has to log into Facebook or go to a comment section of any news network. It is a well-known fact that, when one is too emotional, one tends to be less logical.

     When looking at Facebook status updates, comments on CNN, or comments on political memes, it is easy to find that people make judgments. Be it a matter of economy, morals, or religion, people make judgments for we love to make judgments. We love making judgments so much that we tend to make judgments for things that are obviously beyond an individual's judgment without having been experienced the situation personally. It should be a logical fact that, if one is not in a position whereby one can make an intelligible judgment, one should refrain from making a judgment. For to not refrain is to be prejudicial; it is to be unjust. And if one wishes to make a judgment, one should research more to arrive at an intelligible judgment.

     Intelligible judgment is an element severely lacking within political arenas of the democracies around the world. What fills the gap is the illusion of intelligible judgment, and it is an illusion fooling politicians and the general public alike. And this illusion is created by anyone making judgments without sufficient information and cool heads. Such judgments are made out of our arrogant notion that we are qualified to make whatever judgments we wish. In other words, the judgments are made out of emotional impulse.

     Philosopher Plato said that a person should have his reason dictate his spirited (emotional) and appetitive parts of our selves. He observed that the vast majority of people are incapable of doing so; the vast majority have either their appetites or their emotions govern how they think. Plato also ranked democracy next to the worst: tyranny. One reason, I think, is because he saw first hand how a democracy - a form of government that gives the public the power to judge - can fail. Democracy, he observed, is not a form of government that can easily be governed by reason for those who hold political power are incapable of higher level of thinking.

     When one has his appetites or his emotions rule over his reason, he becomes susceptible to getting his mind enslaved, both by his own passions and the passions of others. This is precisely how democracy fails: lack of rational and informed judgments, and too much of impulsive and uninformed judgments. For without them, democracy dies and ushers in tyranny of propagandists.

     History tells us, in examining the modern modes of propaganda, that  men are easily attacked and assimilated to ideologies. American patriotism, communist comradery, Chinese nationalism, as more innocent examples. And as for more evil ones, jihadism, Nazism, and racism. All you really have to do to convince a mass of people to your cause is make an emotional appeal to the (misconstrued) ideal of justice.

     Emotional appeals based on justice is particularly effective because almost every sane person capable of at least a bit of reasoning wants to value justice. But, at the same time, they haven't the slightest notion of the conceptual knowledge of justice; they merely grasp at the shadow of it. This means that the vast majority of people are not qualified to vote on social matters regarding morals. One has to be educated in philosophical matters to carry out such votes, and those that are philosophically educated are few.

     It can be easily observed that emotional appeals made on grounds of justice entraps the people's minds, not making rational judgments. Let us examine briefly recent events and topics to see how it is so. Take current scandals about policemen for example. For every police overreaction people see, the public is quick to jump on the police officer through media outlets about the man being racist or being racially motivated, criticizing him of immoral acts. The fact of the matter is, the public is not epistemically equipped to judge such matters. It may be true that the officer may have overreacted unprofessionally, but the moral worth of his actions can only be weighed by the particularity of the situation in which the public was not present. Yet, by emotional impulse, the public harasses the officers through social media, oftentimes ruining their lives and any prospect of future employment. The public does this for they were taught that racism is bad. However, they were not taught how to reason with cool heads; no public school system has a course that grows higher moral reasoning within children's minds. Out of emotional impulse that is the emotion of disgust, they jump on the bandwagon of criticizing, regardless of how ignorant they are.

     There are other cases that are more directly connected to the democratic process. The most apparent issue that can be commented on is how Ireland voted for same-sex marriage. The majority voted for same-sex marriage. Yet, at the same time, one must ask: how knowledgeable are the ones that voted on moral matters regarding marriage? How many of them voted because of their moral conscience based on fundamental moral principles? Apart from some Irish Catholics (who were taught those moral principles by the Church) that voted "no", not many. The majority that did not vote from justified moral conscience believed what they believed for there was a bombardment of  advertisements invoking human empathy for years. One can check the advertisements the Irish media showed and it is obvious that there is almost no intellectual appeal to them - only emotional. In this, the Irish democracy is already down its path to failure... or perhaps it already failed.

     In examining what happened in Ireland, it would be wise for all of us to examine ourselves. Do we believe what we believe because we thought through them down to the fundamental moral principles? Do we believe the things we do because we have contemplated upon them? Or do we believe what we believe because we were shown propaganda invoking our emotional impulses? Do we cry "justice!" for the things we do because the news we see confirm our prejudices? When a man like Socrates presses on our beliefs, can we answer him without contradiction?

     For all citizens of democratic nations, the above mentioned questions must be asked without being partial to a sense of pride and confirmation bias. They are questions easily answered if one takes time to contemplate upon them, given that they are willing to part some time off of their texting and cat videos. Very few people, philosophers and religious clergymen/clergywomen for the most part, are able to answer without contradiction when pressed upon their beliefs. For others, few can; even students of philosophy who study and write about these things on a daily basis cannot. Democracy offers a generous amount of political freedom for mankind and yet mankind must be equipped with intellect worthy of utilizing it. So for those who love democracy, it would be wise of them to be impartial to their ignorance and inability to reason in accordance to the truth. If not, from what can be observed, modern form of democracy is on its path down to inevitable failure. Or, on the off chance that it already failed, perhaps the people can one day rebuild democracy in doing so.