Are All Men Created Equal?

A “yes!” or “no!” answer to this question is ridiculous, and it is only through a thorough response that we can fully and accurately assess human differences.

I generally hate “yes-or-no” questions. I do not mean to say that evasive, long-winded charlatanry is in any way preferable, or that we can be agnostic on important matters. I simply mean that expecting absolute affirmation or denial of statements that beg to be picked apart and clarified is stupid and tiresome. It is why I cannot stand those performative Congressional hearings. 

In many ways, “yes-or-no” answers to complicated questions serve as the bedrock of erroneous conventional wisdom, both liberal and conservative. “Was America a just nation at its founding?”, “were American Indians treated fairly by Europeans?”, and “was Robert E. Lee a righteous man?”, if each answered with a simple “yes!” or “no!”, results in either slanderous Black Legend (what liberals always do) or reactionary Edenic Mythmaking (what conservatives often do). 

In my estimation, no question is done injustice by the “yes-or-no” treatment more than this one: “are all men created equal?” The emphatic “yes!” and “no!” responses to this question are especially ridiculous, and it is only through a proper response that we can fully and accurately assess human differences, and what our potential makes us capable of. Perhaps I will write thorough answers to the above questions another time, but I take the “equality” question to be especially pressing. 

Those who answer “yes!” to the question “are all men created equal,” and by “yes!” mean that “everybody is born with the potential to excel in any domain, so long as they apply themselves and receive proper support” (as liberals tend to do, in accordance with the conventional wisdom), are delusional. It is painfully obvious that people are born with marked and unbridgeable differences in intelligence and temperament.

By “unbridgeable,” I am simply recognizing the reality that expecting average people to becoming proficient CEOs, philosophers, aesthetes, or mathematicians is about as unrealistic as expecting a petite woman to become a linebacker, or a wide-framed man to become a ballerina, no matter how hard they try (what Republicans demand they do) or how much outside help they receive (what Democrats demand we provide). This is obvious. In this sense, all men are not created equal.

Those who answer “no!”, in being able to look past the conventional wisdom, are a little bit more perceptive. Yet, their reactionary “no!” is arguably more wicked than the commonplace “yes!”. Those who answer “no!”, and by “no!” mean that “only a few elect, Napoleonic supermen are called to lives of greatness and fulfillment, and that average people are basically cattle, doomed to live an uninformed life, hunched over and staring at the floor,” are also delusional.

I will concede that this view made more sense in antiquity. In Book III of the Republic, Plato outlines the “Myth of the Metals,” in which those with “bronze souls,” who by nature lack the thoughtfulness to grasp philosophical truths, are hopelessly relegated to a less thoughtful life than those with “silver” or “gold souls,” whose thoughtfulness directly correlates with the enlightenment they can attain. At that time, this was true; but it is not true anymore. 

You may be asking yourself what possibly could have changed between antiquity and our present day, so as to grant the prospect of a fulfilled life to those who are not naturally thoughtful? No biological change in man seems to have happened between now and then.

The answer is Jesus Christ. Through Christ, the fulfillment attainable through philosophy is totally dwarfed by the now-available prospect of holiness (man’s ultimate calling). The call to holiness is universal: through Christ (a supernatural force outside of ourselves and our own abilities), anybody can be propelled into greatness. Now, you do not have to be a proficient CEO, philosophers, aesthete, or mathematician to be the best. In this sense, all men are made equal through Christ, in spite of their differences in ability.

Those who are intelligent and impressive, yet still buy the expired lie of exclusionary fulfillment, tend to be very prideful; they cannot accept that, in spite of all their impressive achievements, a simple laborer who follows Christ exceeds them in every measure. So, they lash out, manifesting in a bitter contempt for normal people.

Likewise, those who are simple and do not believe in Christ also tend to be prideful; they hold themselves (or others) to the pre-Christian standard of greatness, and when they (or others) cannot meet it, they deny the obvious differences between people. So, they either scream “lift yourself up by your bootstraps” from a distance, or coddle the unfortunate into uselessness. 

In this way, everybody who does not both state the truth of inherent differences between people, as well as affirm that holiness can now be achieved, cannot help but answer the question incorrectly. This is why “yes!” and “no!” do not satisfy as answers, as tends to be the case with important questions. The answer lies in Christ.

The AdamoZone is a column by Luca Adamo, Vice President of Marketing and columnist at The American Postliberal. Published every Friday at 5:00pm EST.

---

If you enjoyed this article, please consider becoming a patron of our publication! Your enthusiasm and support means a lot to all of us at The American Postliberal — and we promise we’ll work hard for your investment in our project.