Thomas More Institute

From a guest blogger: Some right-of-centre blogs have recently caught the eye. They concern chivalry and the unfortunate running aground of the Costa Concordia. ‘Women and children first used always to be the cry when all else was lost’, is the rough line taken by one commentator. At this point one can assume that whatever is being defended is already beyond saving, and it does indeed appear that chivalry is gradually being consigned to history.

In its place is advanced a new notion of ‘equality’, a kind of umbrella term that suggests that anything we can call good ought to be imputed equally to all, while anything standing in the way of this is at best negotiable. This is to be seen in, for example, debates about wealth and education, but also in those relating to marriage and gender. If marriage is ‘a good thing’, it ought, we are told, to be something that can be imputed to all. In states that have recognised same-sex marriage it need only be a short step to extend the argument in favour of ‘marriage equality’ to polyandrous relationships and other varieties of attachment that any large enough, and adequately vocal, group deems important or meaningful. Ultimately, in such societies, the notion of marriage may come to mean next to nothing. By contrast, ‘Gender’ must be handled very carefully, for it can by common-sense, undermine notions of total equality in procreational roles. There is increasing support in the media for movements advocating that we be ‘genderblind’ and ignore gender altogether regardless of the radical social change that this would entail.

The essential tenets of such movements seem to run as follows:

•  some humans are unhappy and, without a radical re-ordering of society, will remain so;

• others are already happy and will not be less happy if society be reordered on more measurably egalitarian lines.

In this there is clearly a commitment to equality, but it is one without any metaphysical foundation. In the absence of a rationally articulated claim for equality of value between men and women, and in the face of demonstrable and uncontroversial differences, strands of a self-styled progressive movement have engaged in a remaking of society, and of people at large, to create an equality that while measurable is also deeply unnatural. It is such a conception of gender equality that led the European Court of Justice to declare, last year, that insurance companies might not distinguish between men and women in spite of clearly demonstrable differences in the shape of male driving habits and female life expectancy.

Such a materialistic notion of equality is rational in that it is apparently consistent, but it is also consistently wrong. It lacks any understanding of a non-material yet rational part of humanity beyond an equality that we, by force of sentiment, impute to ‘all’ people – unless, of course, they are still in the womb or wish to hold traditional notions of family and society.

It is essential to preserve a rational account of human equality. A right understanding of the equal dignity of all people is a vital component of any civilisation. The chivalrous notion of ‘women and children first’ emerged out of just such an account. This recognises the intrinsic dignity of women and children in that they ought to be saved (as opposed to being considered second-class citizens), while acknowledging that men can, on average, survive better in tough conditions. Moreover, children are necessarily the future of any civilisation and ought to be afforded special care. Women have traditionally provided much of this care – and notably still do so today in a society where fathers are not given adequate incentives to remain faithful to the mothers of their children. In spite of fifty years of ‘progress’ single parenthood frequently means ‘single motherhood’.

We need equality of value, but we also need to be able to hold this value in the face of quite clear, if sometimes ‘difficult’, differences between members of society. It is unfortunate that metaphysical accounts of human nature appear increasingly neglected in public ethics, since it is just such accounts of human nature that are the most successful in accommodating the tension between demonstrable material inequalities, while ensuring a rational foundation for equal rights and universal human dignity. We cannot remake society in whichever way we choose. It is time that we looked a little more closely at who we really are. We did not make ourselves, but we can, up to a point at least, direct our futures.

Related Posts:

• Discrimination = Bigotry?
• Love, Life and Language

Photo Credit: Rvongher. No endorsement implied.