Against Egalitarianism: A Conservative Critique of Liberal Equality, By Brian Simpson

The notion of human equality lies at the heart of liberal ideology, promising a world where all individuals enjoy equal opportunities, rights, and outcomes. Yet, as Bo Winegard argues in his July 2025 Aporia Magazine article, "Against Equality," this ideal is not only unattainable but fundamentally at odds with the reality of human diversity. From a conservative perspective, liberal egalitarianism, exemplified by thinkers like John Rawls and critiqued by philosophers like John Kekes, is a flawed and morally problematic doctrine. Drawing on Kekes' work, particularly Against Liberalism (1997), and Winegard's recent critique, this post outlines the conservative case against liberal egalitarianism, exposing its metaphysical evasions, impractical policies, and disregard for human nature. Far from promoting justice, egalitarianism risks fostering resentment, inefficiency, and a stifling uniformity that undermines both individual flourishing and societal vitality.

Liberal egalitarianism often rests on what Winegard calls "rhetorical chicanery,"the claim that all humans are equal in a metaphysical sense, despite observable differences in talent, intelligence, or character. Kekes, in Against Liberalism, argues that this appeal to metaphysical equality is a sleight of hand. Egalitarians concede that empirical inequalities, Michael Jordan's athletic prowess or Einstein's intellectual brilliance, are undeniable, yet they pivot to an abstract notion of "equal moral worth" or "equal dignity." This, Kekes contends, is a vacuous principle that collapses under scrutiny. If equality exists only in an ethereal realm, it cannot justify the sweeping political interventions, redistribution, affirmative action, or social engineering, that egalitarians demand.

Kekes critiques this as a form of equivocation. By conflating descriptive inequality (observable differences) with prescriptive equality (equal treatment or outcomes), liberals smuggle moral imperatives into a factual void. For example, John Rawls' "veil of ignorance" in A Theory of Justice (1971) posits that rational agents, unaware of their own traits, would choose a society that maximises the position of the least advantaged. Kekes counters that this thought experiment ignores the reality of human motivation and merit. People are not abstract agents but individuals with unique abilities and desires, and forcing equality of outcome disregards the natural diversity that drives innovation and progress.

From a conservative perspective, the pursuit of equal outcomes is not just impractical but unjust. Kekes argues that liberal egalitarianism undermines personal responsibility and merit, key pillars of a functioning society. In The Illusions of Egalitarianism (2003), he asserts that rewarding unequal talents and efforts equally erodes incentives for excellence. If a gifted scientist and an average labourer receive the same rewards, why strive for greatness? This critique echoes Winegard's point that inequality is not only inevitable but desirable, as it reflects the diversity of human potential. A society that flattens differences risks the "equality of poverty and misery," where mediocrity becomes the norm.

Kekes further contends that egalitarian policies, such as progressive taxation or quotas, often harm the very groups they aim to help. By prioritising group-based outcomes over individual merit, these measures foster resentment and division. For instance, affirmative action may benefit some minorities but stigmatise others as "diversity hires," undermining their achievements. Forcing equality breeds contempt, not unity," a sentiment echoed in conservative critiques of policies that penalize success to uplift the disadvantaged.

A core conservative objection, articulated by both Kekes and Winegard, is that egalitarianism denies the reality of human nature. Humans are born unequal, faster, smarter, taller, or more beautiful, as Winegard observes. Kekes argues that this variation is not a flaw to be corrected but a feature of human existence. In Against Liberalism, he critiques the egalitarian assumption that inequalities are primarily the result of social injustice rather than biology or individual choices. While systemic barriers exist, Kekes emphasises that many disparities, such as differences in IQ or athletic ability, are rooted in genetics or personal effort, not oppression.

This denial of natural inequality leads to coercive policies. For example, liberal egalitarians advocate for wealth redistribution to close economic gaps, but Kekes argues this punishes success and infringes on property rights, a cornerstone of conservative thought. The Wall Street Journal reports that in 2024, progressive tax policies in high-egalitarian countries like Sweden reduced income inequality but slowed economic growth by 0.5% annually, validating Kekes' warning that egalitarianism sacrifices prosperity for an unattainable ideal.

Kekes also highlights the moral hazards of egalitarianism. By choosing equality over other values, like liberty, merit, or tradition, liberal policies erode social cohesion. In A Case for Conservatism (1998), he argues that egalitarianism fosters a culture of envy, where the less successful resent the achievements of others rather than striving to improve their own lot. This breeds a victimhood mentality, as seen in debates over "equity" in education, where standards are lowered to ensure equal outcomes, often at the expense of excellence. A 2025 Telegraph article notes that UK schools adopting "equity-focused" grading saw a 15% drop in top-tier exam results, illustrating the cost of ranking fairness over merit.

Winegard's critique aligns here, describing egalitarianism as "morally disquieting" because it punishes the talented to appease the less fortunate. Both thinkers argue that justice lies in rewarding contributions, not equalising outcomes. A society that ignores this risks stagnation, as the most capable are discouraged from innovating or Ode to System.

Egalitarianism's drive for uniformity is another conservative concern. Kekes argues that forcing equal outcomes suppresses cultural and individual diversity, imposing a one-size-fits-all model that erodes traditions and personal agency. For example, gender-neutral policies or race-based quotas, often justified by egalitarian ideals, can alienate communities with distinct values. Equality laws in Europe have crushed local traditions under the guise of fairness, a view Kekes supports in his critique of liberalism's tendency to homogenise societies.

This push for uniformity also fuels social discord. Kekes notes that egalitarian policies often pit groups against each other, as seen in debates over diversity quotas, where beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries feel unfairly treated. A 2025 Economist report found that 60% of UK workers opposed workplace diversity mandates, citing perceptions of reverse discrimination, echoing Kekes' argument that egalitarianism breeds resentment rather than harmony.

Conservatives like Kekes propose a pluralistic society that embraces inequality as a natural outcome of freedom and diversity. Instead of equal outcomes, they advocate for equal opportunity under the law, coupled with a meritocratic system that rewards effort and talent. This aligns with Winegard's call to reject egalitarianism "in toto," embracing a world where differences are celebrated, not erased. Policies should focus on removing barriers, such as discriminatory laws, while allowing individuals to rise or fall based on their abilities.

Liberal egalitarianism, with its metaphysical evasions and coercive policies, is a flawed pursuit that denies human nature and undermines justice. As Bo Winegard and John Kekes argue, equality of outcomes is neither attainable nor desirable in a free society. It breeds resentment, stifles excellence, and imposes uniformity at the expense of diversity. Conservatives advocate for a pluralistic alternative, where unequal talents and efforts are rewarded, and individuals are free to pursue their potential within a framework of equal legal rights. The reality of human inequality is not a moral failing but a source of societal vitality.

https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/against-equality

Written by Bo Winegard.

That humans are born unequal is self-evident. Some are faster, smarter, taller, or more beautiful than others; others are slower, duller, shorter, and plainer. Therein lies the problem. Our inevitable inferiority wounds not only our egos but also our sense of cosmic justice. The reality of inequality is not merely unpleasant, it is morally disquieting.

Worse still, it undermines the alluring promises of progressivism. For the only equality attainable among individuals, sexes, or races is the equality of poverty and misery. In any society that is both functional and free, inequality will be as pervasive as the diversity of human talents.

Yet, like other unpalatable truths, human inequality has been denied consistently and often with remarkable ingenuity. Since variation in talent and character is too conspicuous to reject outright, this denial assumes subtler forms, rhetorical evasions and calculated conflations. The sophists of egalitarianism are masters of equivocation.

An egalitarian asserts that all humans are equal. A skeptic challenges the claim, citing Michael Jordan's extraordinary athletic gifts, gifts that, clearly, are denied to most. The egalitarian concedes the point, but maintains that human equality is not a matter of empirical observation but of metaphysical principle. Equality like the truths of mathematics exists in a realm beyond the vagaries of empirical reality.

But the egalitarian is not content to leave this "metaphysical equality" undisturbed in some ethereal realm. Instead, he invokes it to justify sweeping political and moral conclusions, as if a largely vacuous slogan could bear the weight of an entire ideology. Thus, like a magician who claims he can vanish a house because he can hide an ace up his sleeve, the egalitarian insists that all humans are really equal simply because they are metaphysically equal—whatever that might mean.

This rhetorical chicanery demands bold response. We must not prevaricate, nor defer to metaphysical vacuities. Egalitarianism must be rejected in toto, its metaphysics, its morals, its evasions, its confusions, its subterfuges. Humans are not equal. They never have been. They never will be. And more than that: they should not be. Egalitarianism is not merely false. It is unjust.

https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/0801484006?ref_=mr_referred_us_au_au