FrontPage Magazine speaks to John Kekes about ‘The Lie of Egalitarianism’. In response to one question, the terms of which are so laughable I decline to reproduce them on my blog, Kekes responds in part as follows:
I shall do my best to answer your question, but I must point out that I am not a psychologist and what I say is a guess. One part of the egalitarian motivation seems to me to be an envious resentment of success. Egalitarians seem to mind that some people achieve excellence in some area of life and enjoys [sic] the rewards his excellence brings him…
Another part of the egalitarian motivation is pity for those who are at the bottom. This is a noble sentiment, but it easily becomes sentimentalism. For it makes a great difference why people are at the bottom. If they are the helpless victims of misfortune, that is one thing. If their position is their own fault, that is quite another. People who are deprived through no fault of their own should be helped.
I’d be interested to know what Kekes’s own estimate is in the matter of how many of the world’s people who (just let’s say) don’t have enough to eat are in this situation through some fault of their own. But the main thing I want to comment on is his psychological hypothesis regarding the motives for egalitarianism. Pity isn’t exactly how I would choose to formulate the better of the two impulses he speaks about, but never mind. Here’s a question. Why, given that he acknowledges such a better motivation – ‘a noble sentiment’, he even calls it – does he need ‘envious resentment’ as well? Indeed, does he see the two impulses behind egalitarianism as combined in the same people? (‘Those swines who are richer than I am. I wish I could be like them. Oh, and – show compassion, brothers and sisters, for the wretched of the earth.’) Maybe, he just means it’s different motives for different egalitarians. I don’t know. I, too, am not a psychologist.