Furthermore, diversity and equality are not the most important values. In fact, neither diversity nor equality is valuable at all in its own right. Some diversity is bad. For example, if slavery is inherently wrong, as I suspect we all think it is, then a diversity of views about the morality of slavery is worse than complete agreement that slavery is wrong. Similarly, equality is not to be desired for its own sake. Nobody is equal in all respects. We are all different, which is to say that we are all not the same, which is to say that we are unequal in many ways. And that is generally a good thing. But it is not always a good thing (see the previous remarks about diversity).
Reasoning requires correct judgment. Judgment involves making distinctions, discriminating. Most of you have been taught how to avoid critical, evaluative judgments by appealing to simplistic terms such as “diversity” and “equality.”
Second, you have been taught to resort to two moral values above all others, diversity and equality. These are important values if properly understood. But the way most of you have been taught to understand them makes you irrational, unreasoning. For you have been taught that we must have as much diversity as possible and that equality means that everyone must be made equal. But equal simply means the same. To say that 2+2 equals 4 is to say that 2+2 is numerically the same as four. And diversity simply means difference. So when you say that we should have diversity and equality you are saying we should have difference and sameness. That is incoherent, by itself. Two things cannot be different and the same at the same time in the same way.
So, here are three ground rules for the rest of the semester. 1. The only “ism” I ever want to come out your mouth is a syllogism. If I catch you using an “ism” or its analogous “ist” — racist, classist, etc. — then you will not be permitted to continue speaking until you have first identified which “ism” you are guilty of at that very moment. You are not allowed to fault others for being biased or privileged until you have first identified and examined your own biases and privileges. 2. If I catch you this semester using the words “fair,” “diversity,” or “equality,” or a variation on those terms, and you do not stop immediately to explain what you mean, you will lose your privilege to express any further opinions in class until you first demonstrate that you understand three things about the view that you are criticizing. 3. If you ever begin a statement with the words “I feel,” before continuing you must cluck like a chicken or make some other suitable animal sound.
Third, you should not bother to tell us how you feel about a topic. Tell us what you think about it. If you can’t think yet, that’s O.K.. Tell us what Aristotle thinks, or Hammurabi thinks, or H.L.A. Hart thinks. Borrow opinions from those whose opinions are worth considering. As Aristotle teaches us in the reading for today, men and women who are enslaved to the passions, who never rise above their animal natures by practicing the virtues, do not have worthwhile opinions. Only the person who exercises practical reason and attains practical wisdom knows how first to live his life, then to order his household, and finally, when he is sufficiently wise and mature, to venture opinions on how to bring order to the political community.
Disagreement is not expressing one’s disapproval of something or expressing that something makes you feel bad or icky. To really disagree with someone’s idea or opinion, you must first understand that idea or opinion. When Socrates tells you that a good life is better than a life in exile you can neither agree nor disagree with that claim without first understanding what he means by “good life” and why he thinks running away from Athens would be unjust. Similarly, if someone expresses a view about abortion, and you do not first take the time to understand what the view is and why the person thinks the view is true, then you cannot disagree with the view, much less reason with that person. You might take offense. You might feel bad that someone holds that view. But you are not reasoning unless you are engaging the merits of the argument, just as Socrates engaged with Crito’s argument that he should flee from Athens.
Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at.
Men must not be judged, wholly, by their attainments, or by their gifts, but largely by the degree to which they give themselves to the great cause represented by the plan of the major intelligent Being, for the minor beings of the universe.
The equality of man on earth must be the equal opportunity to progress.
In fundamental principles, in gifts and blessings, in spiritual opportunities, as required or offered by the church, men are stripped of all differences, and stand as if they were equal before God. This is equality of opportunity.
The great problem of every age is how to keep together, as one body, the many who, because of their differing wills, have become different in their powers and attainments.
...it does not follow that all men are equal in all particulars.
The pre-existent progress depended upon self effort, those who exerted their wills most, made the greatest progress; moreover, those who had led the most righteous lives, and had been most careful of their gifts, had acquired greatest strength - consequently, at the time of the great council, though the spirits were in the general, of one class, they differed greatly in the details of their attainments, in the righteousness of their lives, in the stability of their purpose, and in their consistent devotion to the great truth of their lives.
Most probably, the power acquired in the life before this is transmitted to some degree to the earthlife. We may well believe, therefore, that the differences in the quality and characteristics of men, may be traced, in part at least, to the pre-existent lives.
...since there are differences of advancement, the spirits who come on earth are placed frequently in positions for which they are best fitted.
Yet, it must be remembered that predestination can not be compelling. Man's free agency, the great indestructible gift, always remains untrammeled.
It is most likely that those who, on earth, accept the highest truth of life, find the gospel attractive, and are most faithful in the recognition of law, are those who, in the pre-existent state, were most intelligent and obedient.
Man's inequality comes chiefly from the inequality of earth effort.
We live only as our bodies allow; and, since our bodies differ greatly, there is in them another source of man's inequality. In fact, the inequality of man comes largely from inequality of body, through which the eternal spirit tries in vain to speak.
When speaking about the Council of Fifty in Nauvoo, which had members who were not members of the church, In the council men were not consulted about their religious opinions, no matter what they were. “We act upon the broad and liberal principle that all men have equal rights and ought to be respected,” he said. “Every man has a privilege in this organization of choosing for himself voluntarily his God and what he please for religion.”
The different gifts and roles of men and women are intended to complement each other. “The natures of male and female spirits complete and perfect each other, and therefore men and women are intended to progress together toward exaltation” (Elder David A. Bednar, Ensign Feb. 2006). It was never intended that man or woman be alone. As President Boyd K. Packer taught, “At first, Adam was alone. He held the priesthood, but alone, he could not fulfill the purposes of his creation. No other man would do. … Except Adam and Eve by nature be different from one another, they could not multiply and fill the earth. The complementing differences are the very key to the plan of happiness”
This echoed the words of Elder M. Russell Ballard who has taught that “men and women are equal in God’s eyes and in the eyes of the Church, but equal does not mean the same. The responsibilities and divine gifts of men and women differ in their nature but not in their importance or influence. God does not regard either gender as better or more important than the other”