Too Much Equality And Too Little Justice
By DONALD DeMARCO
The first thing that comes to mind when a person thinks about democracy is equality. Citizens of democracy are equal in humanity, equal under the law, and equal in dignity. This notion of equality is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and in the American tradition. It is the cornerstone of democracy and the noble affirmation that no one man is better than another.
Equality, however, does not describe human beings in their entirety. It is only too evident that people are not equal in talent, status, intelligence, aspiration, and a sundry other matters that differentiate one citizen from another. Therefore, the notion of equality has limited application. It is a good thing that we are not all cloned from a single human prototype. Diversity allows for and encourages complementarity, cooperation, collegiality, and creativity.
Voltaire spoke well when he stated the following: “They who say that all men are equal speak an undoubted truth; if they mean that all men have an equal right to liberty, to their property and to their protection of the laws. But they are mistaken if they think men are equal in their station and employments, since they are not so by their talents.”
To focus on one particular example, men and women, though equal in humanity, are not equal biologically (chromosomally, anatomically, and reproductively). Hence, they are given distinctive names and are capable of distinctive acts. Fertilizing an egg and becoming pregnant are not equal activities. And it must be stated here that inequality in itself does not imply superiority or inferiority, just difference.
At the confirmation hearings for being appointed to the United States Supreme Court in 1993, Ruth Bader Ginsburg offered the following justification for abortion: “It is essential to a woman’s equality with man that she be the decision-maker, that her choice be controlling. If you impose restraints, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex. The state controlling a woman would mean denying her full autonomy and full equality.” Ginsburg’s nomination was ratified by a vote of 93 to 3 with one abstention.
Nonetheless, equality is violated when the woman and not the man becomes the decision-maker with regard to abortion. In addition, the notion of “full autonomy” for either the man or the woman is purely a myth. Nor does abortion honor the “full equality” between men and women. Equality simply does not apply in this instance. Moreover, justice is violated when the unborn child is aborted. Here, too much attention concerning equality crowds out the more pertinent issue of justice. It is a scandal that the voting senators did not see this.
“The worst form of inequality,” wrote Aristotle, “is to try to make unequal things equal.” The inequalities that differentiate men and women cannot be made equal. To attempt to equalize non-equals is an injustice. Justice is the broader category; equality is subsidiary to it.
It is perfectly in accord with justice that four men can form a barbershop quartet. Nonetheless, certain feminists have denounced this vocal arrangement as discriminating against women. But to insert a female voice into a barbershop ensemble is to destroy the nature of barbershop quartet singing. Such an act is unjust. Phil Spitalny rose to fame when he conducted an all-female orchestra. Antonio Vivaldi led an all-female orchestra, all of whose members had been abandoned as infants. Several colleges do not admit men, while seminaries may exclude women. The Royal Order of Moose is restricted to men in accordance with their right to establish their own set of rules and mission statement. An excessive preoccupation with equality would be contrary to the legitimate purposes of these arrangements.
We know that the Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” However, it is not well-known that Thomas Jefferson had written, in his first draft, that all men were “created equal and independent.” Congress, showing good judgment, removed the word “independent.” Men are not “independent” prior to becoming part of society. They are social beings to begin with and do not exist in a pre-political way. Secondly, Congress wanted to place limits on equality in order for community life to prevail. Therefore, equality had to be balanced by a kind of mutual dependence in order for a political community to thrive. America could not be a nation of independent, free-wheeling individuals.
It is also important to point out that the moment of creation (when “all men were created equal”) could only have been the moment of conception. Thus, “all men” must have included the unborn.
What Congress did not do was to replace the word they excised (“independent”) with a corrective, such as “co-dependent,” “communal,” or “interdependent.” By leaving the word “equal” stand alone, unbalanced by a more communal word, the notion of equality inevitably gained more power than was appropriate. This may be a key to understanding why the term “equal” has been given more importance than it deserves.
Had a more communal term been inserted to replace “independent,” it would have been more difficult to legitimize abortion since human beings are supposed to form a community of good fellowship and not try to equalize what is inherently unequal. If citizens are directed by the Declaration of Independence to be more cooperative with each other, abortion would appear to be an egregious violation of that spirit of cooperation.
The word “independent,” which Congress removed from Jefferson’s first draft, still has its power. Yet abortion cannot be a “private choice,” exemplifying the autonomy of the pregnant woman. As constitutional lawyer John T. Noonan Jr. points out in his book, A Private Choice, “Each act of abortion bears on the structure of marriage and the family, the role and duties of parents, the limitations of the paternal part in procreation, and the virtues that characterize a mother.”
Would history in modern America have been substantially different had Congress replaced the word it excised with one that had a more communal resonance? No doubt it would.
- + + (Dr. Donald DeMarco is a professor emeritus at St. Jerome’s University, and an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College & Seminary. He is a regular columnist for the St. Austin Review. His latest books, How to Navigate through Life and Apostles of the Culture of Life, are posted on amazon.com.)