The Fear Of Inequality
As the theory goes, if we’re all blank slates, then we must be equal. This is what Pinker discusses in depth regarding our fear of inequality. However, there are three “evils” associated with the misconceptions of evolutionary biology: (1) prejudice, (2) Social Darwinism, and (3) eugenics. With prejudice, it would be rational to discriminate against individuals of certain groups if all people are biologically different. Social Darwinism questions that differences cannot be blamed on discrimination is they come from innate constitutions, which is saying that our only contribution to social success is through inborn differences. Lastly is eugenics, which says that we could possibly intervene with genetics and gene selection if people differ biologically. This is saying that society could eventually pick out what they like/dislike biologically to place greater value of people.
Pinker discusses natural selection and how it’s a biological way of strengthening the effective genes and destroying the ineffective ones. As humans, we’re all created the same way with the same organs and such, but where we are similar qualitatively, we differ quantitatively. An example used is language, as it’s a universal ability for all humans to learn any human language. Like Pinker said (2002), “quantitative differences are small in biological terms, and they’re found to a far greater extent among the individual members of an ethnic group or race than between ethnic groups or races” (p. 143). Humans are built with an equality of rights, but not biological sameness so biology cannot justify prejudice, racism or sexism.
In regard to inborn talents, Social Darwinism doesn’t generally occur unless we believe inborn talents are the key contributors to social status, as they cannot possible be the sole contributors. Even if this were to be true, there is no moral sense of success from gaining because of genetics. As for eugenics, one simply cannot breed for certain attributes or characteristics because there are much too many other variables and factors that must be considered to achieve the genetic combination needed to produce the desired ones.
Pinker discusses that under certain circumstances, there’s an appropriate level of discrimination being upheld. For example, the U. S. has voting laws where people must be at least 18 years to vote. This is reasonable discrimination because it would make no sense to have young kids vote. However, racial profiling is voting discrimination and here it’s not a justifiable type of discrimination. In order to rationalize the appropriateness of discrimination, we must consider the costs and benefits of it and whether or not it’s morally valuable.
However, Pinker doesn’t consider all the possibilities and circumstances that surround inborn talents and social success, which leaves us with an unanswered question. He talks about that talent can matter in the lives of people and that if one possesses a greater talent for something then they will be more successful and reach a higher social status. However, even with inborn talents, they still need to be nurtured to help strengthen them, which takes a lot of the right resources. Pinker doesn’t thoroughly discuss the concept of how the children who have these resources and powers get an automatic advantage over other children. A suggestion to Pinker is that maybe the reason these kids who are behind isn’t because they don’t have a talent or good genes, but maybe it’s because of racism and social oppression that hasn’t allowed them to cultivate their talents and grow successfully?
