The first thing I would say is that
@fantome profane is somewhat correct and has beat me to the punch (why don't I write shorter posts!). Science not only taketh away but also giveth.
In his treatise
De Memoria et Reminiscentia, Aristotle compared human memory to a wax tablet. At birth, the wax is hot and pliable, but as it cools it becomes tough and brittle.
Tabula rasa. It was Aristotle who first coined the term.
While science has conclusively demonstrated that we are not genetic blank-slates (which I reckon would be quite a boring thing, anyway), it has also dispelled the presumption that our "
slate" is incapable of being re-moulded courtesy of
epigenetics and
neural plasticity. The brain is always able to produce new neurons, even into old age. So Aristotle was wrong not just about the idea that the newborn mind is a blank-slate but also in his assertion that it quickly becomes fixed and impermeable, according to eternal laws of nature that predispose some people to be natural slaves (with no hope of change) and others as being natural overlords.
Just consider the case of Aleksander Hemon. Originally from Sarajevo, he found himself exiled in the US on the outbreak of the Bosnian war in 1992 – despite having little command of English.
“I had this horrible, pressing need to write because things were happening. I needed to do it the same way I needed to eat, but I just had no language to write in,” he
later told the New York Times. Within three years, he had published his first piece in an American journal, a journey that eventually led to three critically acclaimed novels, two short story collections, a book of autobiographical essays, and a
MacArthur Genius Award.
He shouldn't, based upon a pessimistic understanding of his "slate" at birth (i.e. foreign language fluency declines with age) have been able to become such a master of the English language in his late twenties - early thirties, but he defied the odds through sheer perseverance and the survival instinct. As a result, he managed to surpass the abilities of most native speakers.
Since the time when Francis Crick first examined the structure of DNA, there has been a scientific consensus to the effect that "
genes load the gun, but environment pulls the trigger." In other words, genetic data isn't a deterministic or fatalistic encoding of individualized traits; rather it only encodes tedious lines of instructions for generating various biological structures if - and only if - given circumstances arise. Which is to say, we aren't just blind automatons driven by and at the mercy of our desires and inherited traits. If we were, then "
epigenetics" and "
neuroplasticity" would not be such burgeoning fields of scientific inquiry right now. In short, Kempermann says, "
Experience matters. Genes are clearly critically important - but even given identical genes and an identical environment, different experiences lead to different personalities, and to the individualization of the brain."
Studies have shown that when illiterate adults in the developing world are taught to read for the first time, their neural circuitry is radically re-wired. Priscilla Sitienei, a midwife from Ndalat in rural Kenya, was one of the test subjects. She was 90 years old and had never received primary education.It's amazing to look at the brain scans and allowing oneself to be overawed by the incredible fertility of the human mind and will. The adult brain proves to be astonishingly flexible. See:
Amazingly flexible: Learning to read in your 30s profoundly transforms the brain
The Max Planck researchers together with Indian scientists from the Centre of Bio-Medical Research (CBMR) Lucknow and the University of Hyderabad have now discovered what changes occur in the adult brain when completely illiterate people learn to read and write. In contrast to previous assumptions, the learning process leads to a reorganisation that extends to deep brain structures in the thalamus and the brainstem
But while this is so, it still doesn't overcome the fact that we have inherent differences in levels of aptitude and in predispositions, when all is said and done.
I could never
ever hope to one day run as fast as Usain Bolt or solve complex mathematical equations like Albert Einstein. The modification of gene expression is not the same thing as actually changing the genetic code itself. Short of ingesting performance enhancing drugs, undergoing artificial genetic tampering in a lab or checking myself in for a lobotomy, there are still inherent limitations set by my genetic code.
So we return to the truism that humans are not born "
equal" in terms of talents and inherited traits.
But this doesn't automatically entail that just because we are not born with the equal talents and traits, that we
shouldn't be treated equally, given the same equality of opportunity or even given a leg-up by the state to help even the odds. Arguments following this line of thought commit the "
naturalistic fallacy".
The natural order is intrinsically
amoral and
purposeless. When we look at inherited traits or behaviors, we are describing what
is in the objective, scientific sense of the term. What we do not do, is derive any prescriptive value judgement therefrom. This is because what we
should do morally speaking, cannot in any ultimate sense be derived from that kind of premise.
Thus, just because some people are naturally smarter or stronger or more competitive, does not automatically mean that our value system or politico-economic structures should enable people with these traits to have supremacy over those who don't. After all, John Rawls explicitly rejected the idea of meritocracy on the basis that orienting society around the unequal distribution of natural talents was as inequitable as doing so with regards to the fortune of a good birth, writing,
"the ordering of institutions is always defective because the distribution of natural talents and the contingencies of social circumstance are [both] unjust.
It is incorrect that individuals with greater natural endowments and the superior character that has made their development possible have a right to a cooperative scheme that enables them to obtain even further benefits in ways that do not contribute to the advantages of others. We do not deserve our place in the distribution of native endowments, any more than we deserve our initial starting place in society...
The appropriate principles of justice will not lead to a meritocratic society. This form of social order … uses equality of opportunity as a way of releasing men’s energies in the pursuit of economic prosperity and political dominion. … The culture of the poorer strata is impoverished while that of the governing and technocratic elite is securely based on the service of the national ends of power and wealth. Equality of opportunity means an equal chance to leave the less fortunate behind in the personal quest for influence and social position."
- John Rawls (b. 1921, d. 2002) was an American political philosopher in the liberal tradition
The logic at play in the Randian viewpoint errs - to my mind - in its assumption that natural talent should be viewed as a
merit rather than a
gift, as Pope Francis once noted:
Pastoral visit of the Holy Father Francis to the Archdiocese of Genoa (27 May 2017) – Meeting with the world of work at the Ilva Factory
The new capitalism, through meritocracy, gives a moral appearance to inequality because it interprets the talents of people not as a gift: talent is not a gift according to this interpretation: it is a merit, determining a system of cumulative advantages and disadvantages.
Thus, if two children are born differently in terms of talent or social and economic opportunities, the economic world will interpret the different talents as merits and will pay them otherwise. And so, when those two children retire, the inequality between them will be multiplied...
This is the old logic of Job’s friends, who wanted to convince him that he was guilty of his misfortune. But this is not the logic of the Gospel, it is not the logic of life
Both Rawls and Christian morality avoid the pitfall of the naturalistic fallacy. If your biology makes you intelligent, handsome, healthy or humorous, you don't necessarily
deserve to be above those people whom nature hasn't seen fit to make quite so smart, beautiful, healthy or socially gregarious. And if you are less intelligent, or not as good looking, or sickly, you don't deserve to have
no-one should help you, just because its biology baby!
That's a value judgement (an "ought") that the mere fact of intelligence or good birth or health (the "is") does not automatically give you.
I have more to say on this later, other points to raise.
