In Monday’s post about Angela Saini’s race-denialist polemic, I should have added a few words about the deep moral and philosophical errors that lead so many people to fear, and to seek to suppress, the stubborn realities of human biodiversity. (“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”)
For Americans the starting point, both philosophically and historically, is the natural-rights theory of the Founding, which takes as axiomatic that every adult has an equal and inalienable right to life, liberty, and property, and shall stand as the equal of every other before the law, and that no person is by nature subject or sovereign to any other.
Moreover, the realities of human biodiversity are only statistical. Humans vary within populations on every trait-axis, and so differences in the average distribution of heritable traits within population groups tell us nothing in advance whatsoever about any individual. Our default position with regard to any person of any race should, prior to direct, personal experience, be one of civility, decency, and respect.
Finally, to deny the realities of statistical between-group differences makes all of the above hostage to empirical truth, and implies that if such differences turn out to be real, then all of our fundamental notions of natural rights, equal justice, and human dignity are somehow made invalid, and our worst impulses given license. Whatever the answer to the empirical question may turn out to be, it is foolish to put ourselves in a position that requires us to fear the discovery of natural truths, and then to allow that fear to suppress rational inquiry.
As Arthur Jensen said in 1972:
We must clearly distinguish between research on racial differences and racism. Racism implies hate or aversion and aims at denying equal rights and opportunities to persons because of their racial origin”¦ But to fear research on genetic differences in abilities is, in a sense, to grant the racist’s assumption: that if it should be established beyond reasonable doubt that there are biologically or genetically conditioned differences in mental abilities among individuals or groups, then we are justified in oppressing or exploiting those who are most limited in genetic endowment.
Ernst Mayr, 1963:
Equality in spite of evident non-identity is a somewhat sophisticated concept and requires a moral stature of which many individuals seem to be incapable. They rather deny human variability and equate equality with identity. Or they claim that the human species is exceptional in the organic world in that only morphological characters are controlled by genes and all other traits of the mind or character are due to “conditioning’ or other non-genetic factors”¦ An ideology based on such obviously wrong premises can only lead to disaster. Its championship of human equality is based on a claim of identity. As soon as it is proved that the latter does not exist, the support of equality is likewise lost.
These quotes are taken from an excellent paper, by Noah Carl, titled How Stifling Debate Around Race, Genes and IQ Can Do Harm. You can read it here. It will be well worth your time.
10 Comments
While a thoughtful and reflective person can easily distinguish between racial differences and racism, the reality is that many are not so disposed. There is historical evidence for the justification of mistreatment based on racial difference. I think the fear for some is that, while we ought not to take away a person’s basic rights because they belong to a group with statistically lower IQ overall, some of us just might rationalize doing it anyway…
Truth is of the utmost importance, and if the evidence shows that there are differences between racial groups then so be it. We ought to accept that. But how do we ensure that, in the real world, these differences don’t find use as a justification for injustice? Is the “equal and inalienable right to life, liberty, and property” truly axiomatic? Do most people even have a robust enough metaphysical framework anymore within which to answer a question like that? Or, with the loss of the metaphysical and religious framework within which those ideas were developed, are we left in such a state that we are basically pleasure and power seekers, so that our fear that any perceived weakness will be seized upon and used as a justification to lord it over someone else is a valid one?
(I’m just spitballing here. I’m 35 and spend a lot of time with people in their 20’s and 30’s. I am not confident that my generation has any way of grounding any sort of objective ethical system. The fear of the results of race science seems to be founded on the idea that the world really does just boil down to power – those who have it and those who don’t. In such a world it is hard to see how we could prevent race science from being used as a cudgel for racism.)
Excellent points. You are right that the moral and rational quality of the citizenry is essential if the principles of the Founding are to remain an effective basis for civil society and the American form of government. The Founders understood this very well indeed, and feared that if those qualities were lost, the whole enterprise would fail.
The pithiest reply I can make is that if things have already eroded beyond that critical threshold — as it seems, increasingly, they have — then all is reduced to naked, factional warfare anyway. If that’s the way it’s going to be, then which path shall we choose — to descend into an increasingly oppressive totalitarianism based on the denial of reality and the natural moral order, or to stand defiantly upon our principles?
A further question: if, for your generation, there is no foundation left for moral judgment, and so the revelation of actual group differences would indeed be taken to justify one group “lording it over” another, then what basis is there for them to have any sense that this would be wrong, or something to fear? From what standard of right and wrong does this arise?
Perhaps there is still some shred of conscience left, after all, that needs only to be guided and reawakened.
Indeed! None whatsoever. But that doesn’t stop them. For myself, that is what I find most alarming at this stage. The acceptance of naked contradictions. The way we seem to “swap hats” when we move from one topic to another – one minute we will speak about human beings as if they were nothing more than an accidental byproduct of natural forces, creatures whose existence has no meaning or value in a universe devoid of those illusions, and the next we will use strong language about “inalienable rights” and “liberty” – as if these could be anything other than illusions as well! Does truth even matter to you if you can hold that contradiction before your mind and see nothing wrong with it?
Now to me it is obvious that truth does matter – more, probably, than anything else – and it is obvious that we ought to strive toward some sort of unifying metaphysical vision which will make sense of it all. The ancient western religious tradition provided this, but we have jettisoned much of it and gutted most of what remains. Perhaps one could start with Aristotle’s Ethics? Few seem disposed to really dig into anything that requires real work and reflection though. We are an utterly disoriented and distracted generation. Busybodies who have lost the meaning of leisure. Where do we go from here?
(As a Catholic, my inclination is to say that the best way to change the world is to live your life for something that transcends it. That leaves room for things to play out according to providence, and maybe that’s just the way we ought to stand in relation to the whole drama? Perhaps at this point we simply need to “stand defiantly on our principles” as you say, and have a little faith in the ultimate victory of truth.)
Bones,
Right. What else have we got?
Glad to have you here. Thanks for the comments.
What would it mean for one group to lord it over another? It could be something bad, e.g., slavery. It could be something good and reasonable: whites demanding that underclass blacks conform to civilized standards of behavior, educate themselves and speak a language that enables higher order thinking–and if that proves impossible, unilaterally seceding from the majority of the black population and justly punishing–severely–the kinds of savage crimes that blacks commit at astronomic rates. Anything like this would be considered “lording it over” blacks by many people now. In reality it would mean that many whites and blacks had better lives, that crime and social dysfunction were radically diminished for the majority of people, that western societies could make real progress.
I suspect the real fear of many people is not that race science would become a pretext for immoral arrangements, but rather that morality as applied in light of race science would require arrangements we have been taught to hate. The fear is that our socially accepted moral code is immoral. Or in other words, our new religion is false and the old one might have been true. Fear that we are the bad guys after all, not the heroes.
Hi Jacques,
Right: I think the religious angle is the key to understanding this. In our new secular religion — which is essentially a mutated strain of Christianity, shot down from the sky — much of the original theology remains, in particular the idea of salvation through atonement. It’s necessary, then, that there be some ongoing sin for which we must atone — and if statistical patterns of social circumstances are shown to be, even in part, just due to the natural history of h. sapiens, instead of being all our fault, then the soteriological narrative is wrecked.
If only these people thought it was _their_ fault. They might at least take a break from hate-scolding everyone else. It would be so peaceful and quiet. Imagine a day where we didn’t have to hear about how eating tacos (or not eating tacos) is similar to the holocaust.
>>Our default position with regard to any person of any race should, prior to direct, personal experience, be one of civility, decency, and respect.<<
This may need some nuancing. Suppose I am walking down the street. On my side, coming toward me, are three or four black youths. On the other side, also coming in my direction, the same number of white Mormon youths looking like little Romneys. I don't know any of these people. I cross over to the Mormon side because I judge the likelihood of trouble from the blacks to be greater than that of trouble from the Mormons. I am carrying concealed. Question: is my behavior consistent with what I quoting you as saying? On one way of reading it is not. For I am not treating the two groups equally.
Hi Bill,
Fair point (and it’s the same one that got Derb defenstrated). Let me see if I can thread this needle…
One reply would be that you haven’t really violated civility, decency, or respect simply by choosing the other side of the street. I’d say also that whether you’d choose to do this would be based on a visual sizing-up of the black youths: if they are well-dressed and seem well-behaved, your reaction might be different than if they are wearing sagging pants, do-rags, and are swaggering and acting boisterous. But that’s exactly why I nuanced my remark with “direct personal experience”, which of course is broad enough to include a visual assessment.
Having known you all these years, I’m going to go out a limb and say that when you meet a black person in, say, an office, at a store, in a restaurant, etc., your default is indeed to treat him, unless he gives you some reason to do otherwise, with civility, decency, and respect.
(I’d also be surprised if you’re saying that our default position should be to treat black people with incivility, indecency and disrespect!)
I’m not denying your underlying point here, though, which is (I think) that there are statistical realities, regarding crime and impulsive violence, that it is rational to include as part of our assessment of every situation. I think you will agree also, though, that there is some moral balance that must be struck here, as there is surely some downside to presuming the worst about individuals based on nothing more than the statistical distribution of traits in human groups.