“All men are equal” used to mean “equal in the eyes of God”, equal souls, not equal bodies or minds. Innate capability differences were obvious and acceptable because worth was metaphysical instead of empirical. Your soul had infinite value regardless of vessel
Remove God and equality loses its justification. Worth becomes something you have to measure, and measurement implies comparison.
Secular philosophy tries to solve this with abstractions—dignity thresholds, shared suffering, moral person-hood, etc.—but it’s socially unusable. Most people can’t reason in concepts that took philosophers centuries to formalize.
Blank slatism is what solves this. If differences don’t exist, equal treatment needs no justification and the hard problem disappears.
But, that’s the problem: if we’re all born identical with the same potential, then all differences must be environmental and socioeconomic. Every gap becomes someone else’s fault, every inequality is injustice and capitalism is evil.
Admitting innate differences would force trade-offs nobody is willing to make. Merit becomes defensible and equal outcomes require coercion.
Blank slatism is the shield against those conversations. That’s why its defended with religious intensity, because the modern order runs on it. Question it and you’re heretical (or worse, a RaCiSt)
With God, equality and worth are metaphysical matters. Without God, equality and worth collapse into empirical and physical matters, governed by arbitrary philosophical abstractions. The result is blankslatism. Blankslatism is, ultimately, a rejection of God, yet often done so in the name of God.
Consider this. In the Bible, the death penalty is explicitly, metaphysically justified in terms of all men being in the image of God. In modernity, the death penalty is defined—by the secular and religious—as a purely physical act that is largely unacceptable according to philosophical abstractions within a humanist utilitarian framework (e.g. human dignity).
You can see a symptom of this abandonment of the metaphysical in the latest Roman Catholic position on the death penalty that was introduced in 2018:
2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
Pay special attention to the portions that I highlighted. This portrays human worth as something that can be, by implication, measured. It concludes that very serious crimes are not enough to place someone below the (implied) threshold for dignity.
“We’ve measured dignity” they might say, “and we’ve found that even the coldest, most heartless, psychopathic, blasphemous murderers still have some.”
The basis for the death penalty in the metaphysical equality of mankind made in the image of God? Gone completely.
The elite (like the Roman Catholic clergy) may talk about abstractions such as dignity thresholds or moral personhood. They may even believe what they are saying to some extent. But, these philosophical ideas do not resonate with the common people, and they certainly do not agree on them.
In light of this, it is no wonder, then, that Christianity at large—not Catholicism only—has more-or-less completely embraced secular blankslatist philosophy. On one hand you have a few people saying that the death penalty is wrong because of human dignity (or, even and most ironically, the image of God). But, on the other hand, most people have slid directly into blankslatism. Everything else is just lip service. Thus:
Admitting innate differences would force trade-offs nobody is willing to make. Merit becomes defensible and equal outcomes require coercion. Blank slatism is the shield against those conversations. That’s why its defended with religious intensity, because the modern order runs on it. Question it and you’re heretical (or worse, a RaCiSt)
Just discovered your blog and have very much enjoyed it so far.
In regards to the blank slate, I have been on this same train of thought for quite some time, and it’s why I became a conservative initially. But only recently have I become a Christian and started to realize that conservatism is equally antithetical to Christianity.
The blank slate staggers on but spiritually it died with behaviorism. I think what is becoming popular now derives from NRx stuff, heavily influenced by Catholic conservatives such as Russell Kirk, Pat Buchanan etc. Kirk was adamant about “unalterable human nature.” Catholics have long appealed to nature: natural order, natural law. The new right loves mysteries, like the video of the penguin: “but why?” The implication being there is something to nature we can’t understand, but somehow we should yearn to live by it.
The only true in between, or true freedom, I think comes from the view of man possessing rationality, ie the image of God. It doesn’t get a lot of likes on X though, lol.
Andrew,
Welcome to the blog. Your comment is out of moderation and future comments will show up automatically.
Blankslatism has taken some hits of late, but it is still, by far, the dominate philosophy. The NYT published a hit piece on Cremieux over the weekend that practically codifies blankslatism. See here. Here are the main bullet points:
– Never be open. Minimize the presentation of summary statistics, the frankness of conclusions, the interpretability of data, lest someone ‘bad’ notice that it reaches uncomfortable conclusions for anyone with the approval of the professional middle-class.
– If you touch the third rail, couch it in euphemism. If you happen to accidentally find something that makes a certain group look bad, misportray it. If you find something that you feel is inappropriate or could get you in trouble, lie and say it’s good, or blame someone else for it.
– Don’t be too curious. If you’re interested in particular topics, you will be considered to be a bad actor, even if those topics are important, answerable with existing data, can lead to positive interventions, and so on. If you have the gall, you can lose it all. If you’re familiar with cancel culture in academia, your list of examples is effectively unlimited. The NYT stands for more cancellation.
To “do science” you have to censor and lie, and by no means can you ever be curious, creative, and open.
I recommend reading Bruce Charlton’s Not Even Trying, for free here. He discussed this topic back in 2012. Very little has changed. He would probably say it is even worse!
Peace,
DR