Human equality

 Hypothesize that it were proven one race or some other subdivision of humanity is statically consistently better than another?  So what?  Individuals who are lacking are still treated equally?

That is very close to the position taken by most modern liberal democracies.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it were conclusively demonstrated that some human population—whether defined by ancestry, ethnicity, sex, or some other category—had a statistically higher average score on some trait: intelligence, strength, conscientiousness, musical ability, whatever.

The immediate question is: what follows from that?

The answer is often: much less than people imagine.

First, averages are not individuals. Even if Group A averaged higher than Group B on some trait, there would almost certainly be enormous overlap between the distributions. Many members of Group B would exceed many members of Group A. If you are hiring a mathematician, teaching a child, or choosing a friend, you are dealing with a particular person, not a statistical average.

Second, equal treatment before the law does not logically depend on equal abilities. We already accept this in countless ways. Some people are taller, stronger, healthier, wealthier, more attractive, or more intelligent than others. Yet we do not conclude that the less gifted should have fewer legal rights. The principle of equal rights is a moral and political principle, not an empirical claim that everyone is identical.

Third, there is a danger in moving from "is" to "ought." Even if a difference exists, it does not tell us what policies are justified. Knowing that men are on average stronger than women does not tell us whether women should vote. Knowing that some populations have different disease risks does not tell us how they should be treated socially or politically.

Historically, much trouble arose because people assumed that a group average justified judging every individual member of the group. That is a statistical mistake before it is a moral mistake.

So one could say: even if such differences were proven beyond dispute, the strongest argument for treating individuals fairly remains unchanged. A person appears before us as an individual human being. Their own abilities, character, and actions are what matter in most situations, not the average characteristics of a category to which they belong.

In fact, a society committed to individual rights can tolerate the discovery of group differences more easily than a society that bases rights on group identity, because its central principle is already that individuals are not reducible to group averages.
Files, images, and data analysis are unavailable until usage resets at 8:09 AM. Continue chatting with text only, or upgrade for more access.