Word Weld

Equality and uniqueness are contrary concepts. Being a parent for the last decade has caused me to examine this topic from time to time, and I can say that it is not a simple one. Indeed, this concept… the juxtaposition of human uniqueness with the idea of equality, or fairness, is a problem of divine tier. When I consider how different my children are, it becomes clear that fairness has limitations that cannot be ignored.

The Problem of Equity

Of course, fairness is a concept that is unique to human beings on this earth, and is one of the defining features of mankind, setting us apart from so-called “other animals.” No animal is concerned with their young getting the same amount of food. No puppy is concerned that it may be getting less milk than its litter mates. No elephant seal is concerned that maybe being 20% bigger than the other male made it an unfair fight. But humans are concerned with fairness; in fact, they are obsessed with it from the very earliest age. C. S. Lewis said in his fantastic apologetic work, Mere Christianity:

“Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: ‘How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?’ – ‘That’s my seat, I was there first’ – ‘Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm’ – ‘Why should you shove in first?’ – ‘Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine’ – ‘Come on, you promised.’ People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups. Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: ‘To hell with your standard.’ Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have.”

C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Now, Lewis goes on to expound upon what he calls the “Law of Nature,” but we will stop here, because we do not need to get all the way to the core of it, which is the existence of Right and Wrong. We need only to reach the conclusion that very intrinsically, fairness is ingrained into the human experience. My children constantly bicker about fairness, as I’m sure yours do too, and indeed I did myself as a child and I’m sure you did too. And as Lewis states, this is our companion through life. If someone cuts you off in traffic, or steals your bike, or cuts in line when you’ve sat at the DMV since it opened, or a judge orders you to pay a ticket when the accident was clearly not your fault, your sense of fairness is aroused, and anger is quick to follow. Now, that being said, we often do not mind if things are unfair in our favor. A child forced to sit in the undesirable seat at dinner or in the car is carefully monitoring the child currently in said chair, and if that person gets to sit there anything more than agreed-upon limit, immediately becomes a paragon of justice and equality. But never once have any of my children, while seated in the chair of highest value, suddenly wring their hands and state, “Oh, father, I sat here twice in a row! That is certainly unfair to my other siblings! I will gladly forfeit my next turn in this wonderful chair in order to bring all back into balance!”

On the contrary, a child who has had two turns in a row will quite ridiculously attempt to justify the fact that they sat there twice, and will even imply that they somehow deserved to sit their twice, appealing to an apparently new standard of fairness that clearly defies the very concept. Fairness thus becomes a way of keeping other people in check, but very seldom do we apply it to ourselves. And we have only glanced at this problem from a low level. Think of politicians taking it to a grand scale, stating that entire groups of people are being unfairly treated and attempting to show how. We have seen everything from blue collar workers and writers, to people of different financial status, to ethnic groups, to the entire female gender, and even the animal kingdom and inanimate objects like the world itself being upheld as the object of unfair treatment by some other group, or even every group.

At a small scale, equity (today’s politically correct term for fairness) breaks down if pursued too doggedly. Even amongst my children, I cannot treat them equally. One of them hates mayonnaise. Everyone else gets mayonnaise on their sandwich because they don’t hate it. Do I force the picky child to eat the mayonnaise like everyone else? Or do I say no one shall eat it? What if another child loves it? And if I solve the problem by saying that everyone can eat or not eat what they want, do I not then do damage to equity?

Equity is a legal term and Webster gives us this definition: “justice according to natural law or right,” but the term equitable means “having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally with all concerned.” We can treat everyone the same if we really try, but we have seen both in our own lives and throughout history that this type of system breaks down quickly. Socialism is a political system that at least ostensibly is predicated on the concept of equity or equal treatment, but carried to the extreme. In practice, socialism is actually an oligarchy, where the ruling class is made up of high-ranking members of the socialist party, but at least ideologically socialism is about making everyone (who is not of the ranking class) equal in every way. Gradually, socialism breaks down because pure equity breaks down. People are not robots. Some of my children like mayo, some do not. Some people are industrious and work hard, some are not and do not. Socialism ends in impersonal barbarism for the working class because ultimately that is what you must be in order for the situation to work: an automaton with no intrinsic value and therefore of no more value than the next automaton.

Now, do I mean to say that fairness is of no value, and that no one should be treated equally? Not at all. Fairness is not at all evil in and of itself. It is a good concept, but makes for a poor ideology.

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
– Leviticus 19:15

The Biblical term, actually also a legal term, is the phrase “respecter of persons.” What this means is, if you are a judge in a situation, you should be impartial, or fair, not changing your judgement because of someone’s situation. These verses come from the Law of Moses because they concern judgment, justice, fair treatment, etc. Here is one from Deuteronomy:

Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.
– Deuteronomy 1:17

There are numerous other such passages, but I need not list all. Suffice it to say, equitable treatment is a good thing. We get our sense of justice and equity from God. It is a part of the “image of God” that man was created with, and separates us from animal life which cares only for instinct and survival, not for the fair treatment of other creatures. But we as humans like to take good concepts like love, creativity, and equity, and create world-views, political systems, and even religions around them. But they are none of those things: they are attributes of God perverted by sinful men.

If then equity is not a bad thing, but is being misused, we must also look at its antithesis.

The Problem of Uniqueness

As I have said, my children are not equal. They are a bunch of little rapscallions: some tall, some young, some with straight hair, some boy, some girl, some with a taste for oat meal, some with an aversion to sauces, some who like dresses, some who like trucks. They are, in a word, different. And oh, how different they are. My eldest children are twins. They look alike in many ways, sound alike in many ways, and even like and do many of the same things… but in as many ways as they are alike, they are different in even more ways. From their tastes in clothes, food, entertainment, to their speech pattern, and even the way they stand and their habits, they are completely unique. And we are all of us unique. We have common features that we share, for the most part: two arms, two legs, a head, language, thought, feelings, etc. There may even be someone out there with whom you share a great number of similarities. Through dating apps you can find a person who thinks like you on nearly every point. But only nearly. Because there will still be something, even a small thing, that sets you apart from anyone else.

The Bible supports this truth with verses like:

For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
– Psalm 139:13-15

 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body.
– I Corinthians 12:12-20

As beings made in the image of God, we are unique. We are designed specifically by God with attributes, physical, mental, and spiritual which are uniquely us. We have a soul, uniquely created by God, and He has a plan for each of us specifically.

Going once more to C. S. Lewis, he goes deeper:

“Be sure that the ins and outs of your individuality are no mystery to Him; and one day they will no longer be a mystery to you…God will look to every soul like its first love because He is its first love. Your place in heaven will seem to be made for you and you alone, because you were made for it–made for it stitch by stitch as a glove is made for a hand.”

C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

My children have unique needs, and if I decided to be perfectly equitable with all of them, I would inevitably end up hurting them. One of my children has scoliosis, and it needs correction. I have to specifically encourage her, more than the others, to have good posture, but it wouldn’t be right to force all of the other children do to the same spinal exercises she has to do: after all, they don’t have the same situation she does. Some children have allergies or conditions that require special treatment, for their health and safety.

My lovely wife of soon-to-be 16 years dealt with this and all of the ramifications when she developed diverticulitis. For over a year, she did not eat meat, could not eat leafy greens, and could not eat sugar, among other things. Her diet was extremely strict, and ultimately paid off as she has healed her digestion greatly and can now enjoy things she used to (in moderation). But for a long time the family had separate meals just for her. The kids and I ate one thing, and she ate another. It wasn’t fair. She was unique and had to have special treatment. Now, no one would suggest that we force her to eat what we ate, and potentially cause her terrible harm. But there is a danger the other direction too. I did not suddenly announce our family was now a restaurant and that everyone could order food to their distinct, unique tastes. After all, we are not actually a restaurant and there are eight people in our family. Neither I nor my wife are cooking eight distinct dishes every night. That would be hugely impractical and more importantly would teach my children poor manners and habits.

Just as socialism attempts to force equity on everyone, creating a race of robots and causing misery for everyone involved, libertarianism is the sociopolitical equivalent of individualism. Individualism is what I consider to be the philosophical opposite of equity. Webster says that individualism is defined as “a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount.” Just as equal treatment can be taken to an extreme, so too its opposite can be stretched to the breaking point. Social equity leads to socialism which leads to authoritarianism, as it must crush individualism in order to make everyone equal. Similarly but opposite, social individualism leads to libertarianism which leads to anarchy. With this mindset, our individual needs, wants, and desires completely eclipse those of the people surrounding us. It can be quickly seen where this will lead. We do not live in a vacuum. We are not isolated in this world even in the furthest sense of the word “isolated.” It’s true that some people could go live in the foothills of the Appalachians, in a wood hut trapping rabbits and living off of an herb garden and water from the nearby springs. Without a phone, without a family, and without the need for other human interaction, perhaps the hedonism of libertarianism would be possible. But the vast majority of people cannot live the hillbilly life. As a social system and as a ideology, libertarianism breaks down just as badly as socialism. Extreme individualism leads to damaging self-harm and ultimately the harm of others, because our actions can and will affect those around us. I can say that it’s my life, and I can smoke weed, or drink myself stupid, or stay up to all hours on video games, or any number of other activities with no regard to the well-being of others, but I will affect them, no matter my assertions.

The Complement

When we look at complex metaphysical ideas like individualism and equity, we tend as people to look at it in a dualistic way: that they are irreconcilable foes, locked in eternal conflict. That is, in fact, what dualism proposes about morality, but of course morality is not black and white, locked in eternal conflict, but rather white and ruined white, which must be cleansed through the blood of Christ. Good and evil are not opposites, as are individualism and equity, evil is simply “not good.” Good is the whole tree and evil is the part of the tree that is infected and rotting away: they are not the opposite of the tree and they cannot exist without the tree. But the ideas of individualism and equity are not moral. They are are good until they are used to justify evil. Indeed, they are complementary: opposite yet both necessary.

I watched Star Trek growing up, and one of these odd sort of dichotomies was when, in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, the character of Spock sacrifices himself to save the ship, and everyone else on it. As he is dying on the other side of the safety glass from Kirk, he gives this truism: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.” A couple of movies later, due to some sci-fi/magic plot devices, Spock returns to life, and asks Kirk why he and the others risked all to bring him back, to which Kirk replies, “Sometimes the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.”

So which is it? Well, sometimes it is one and sometimes it is the other. We don’t see a paradox here, but rather a complementary pair. Men and women were intended this way, opposites in almost every way, yet designed to fill different roles in marriage, and in the family, and fit together perfectly if they do right and put one another’s needs first. So it is with sacrifice: it is not a one-and-done. Christ Himself sacrificed His life to save all of ours. Clearly the needs of the many were greater. And yet, in II Samuel 23, we see that three of David’s mighty men risked their lives for his sake, and not to save his life, but purely out of love, and David would not drink the water they gave, but poured it out to God in humble thanks. These are complementary halves to the idea of sacrifice, which is one idea.

And so I come back to my point. There must be fairness in this world, but there must also be respect for the individual. There must be rules that apply to all, and then there must also be a way to temper those rules to help those in need. I can have a rule that we all eat the same dinner at my house, and also make an exception for the sick child or my wife with her condition. God Himself chose to create rules fit for everyone, and then say later that He is Lord of those rules. Human beings want to take one or the other of these ideas and build an ideological world view, but one or the other without its complement only leads to grief and sorrow. On one hand, we can become legalistic and rigid, forcing everyone into molds we have made for them, and breaking whatever limbs it takes to get them to fit. On the other, we can create a selfish, entitled world where no one has the ability to infringe on the rights and individuality of anyone else, no matter how much it may harm others. Individuality does not abolish the Law of Nature, but nor does the letter of the law abolish individuality. Both are required in equal measure. I leave you with these two contrasting but complementary passages:

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
– Matthew 12:1-8

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
– Matthew 5:17-18