In Defense of Discrimination
by Alice von Hildebrand - May 13, 2008
Reprinted with permission from our good friends at InsideCatholic.com, the leading online journal of Catholic faith, culture, and politics.
Years ago, the word "discrimination" was primarily used to make intelligent distinctions. A discriminating person was one capable of perceiving the crucial difference between good taste and bad taste, between beauty and ugliness, between a cultivated person and a coarse one, between moral good and evil, between normal and perverse. To call a person discriminating was a compliment.
The Sixties brought about not only political revolutions but religious, artistic, and cultural ones as well. Today discriminating has assumed an almost exclusively negative meaning: to be prejudiced, intolerant, unfair, politically incorrect. Many are those who live in constant fear of a lawsuit because of an accidental remark they made that is (willfully) interpreted as discriminatory. There are plenty of lawyers who specialize in cases of discrimination. This historical fact had the regrettable consequence of making us totally forget that we should be "discriminating."
The curse plaguing our society was already identified by Isaiah: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness . . ." (5:20). "Dictatorial relativism" (so designated by Pope Benedict XV) commands us to eliminate distinctions: Statements and propositions are "true for oneself," and not necessarily true for another person. To call some modern churches shockingly "ugly" is arrogant and undemocratic. To place Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven above rock music should be condemned as elitist, and an imposition of one's subjective taste on others. The individual subject is the "measure of all things" (Protagoras). Truth, moral values, beauty are empty words; what matters is what the individual accepts as true, what he calls morally good, what he likes. It is up to the all-important "me."
This is "the climate of the time." That it is nefarious and unhealthy is best proved by the Bible: One of the plagues affecting modern man is that he has caught the disease diagnosed by Isaiah quoted above – we no longer know how to discriminate.
Does it mean that there are no cases of illegitimate discriminations? Alas, this cannot be denied. It is the duty of both individuals and states to try to correct these injustices. But just as "there will always be poor among you," so there will always be cases of injustices: This is our sad earthy condition. It sheds light on a surprising remark of St. Thérèse of Lisieux who, referring to St. Paul (1 Cor 4:5) exults at the thought that in heaven, there will be perfect justice. Knowing that man's thirst for justice (already so profoundly incrusted in small children) is constantly frustrated on this earth, she rightly reminds us that in eternity every single person will receive exactly what is his due.
God gave the human persons a dignity that was denied to all other material creatures; man is given dominion "over every living thing that moves over the earth" (Gen 1:29). For centuries this has not been contested, but some contemporary thinkers have discovered that this is a clear case of discrimination. Societies for the protection of animal rights have mushroomed in recent years.
That cruelty toward animals is to be condemned need not be discussed (see Dietrich von Hildebrand's Moralia). To be in a dominant position carries with it grave moral duties, and it is to man's shame that some animals have been and are being brutally treated. This is not the question at stake.
The animal-rights philosophy is based on the claim that there is no justifiable reason for placing man above animals; after all, man descends from apes. As the latter have not yet evolved sufficiently to fight for their rights, the devil has found one courageous defender of these creatures in the person of Peter Singer, a professor of ethics at Princeton University. His basic principle is that a healthy animal ranks higher than a sickly human being. Performance is what counts. It is therefore legitimate to save a healthy whale that got stuck in an estuary and to murder unhealthy babies. This is a far cry from St. Augustine, who wrote: "And who would not rather be a man, even though blind in fleshly sight, than a beast who can see?" (De Trinitate, XIV, 14). We have progressed indeed!
In fact, the Bible is replete with "discriminations" shocking to modern man, whose enlightened mind can no longer accept unscientific stories. This clear case of discrimination against animals is only a first step in a long series of other injustices of which this famous book is replete.
It tells us that the Jewish people were God's chosen ones. God never justified this election; He simply decided to give them this awesome privilege. Pious Jews know that it was not due to their own merits, and realize that this honor is a clarion call for them to be grateful to the Donor – to adore, serve, and obey His commands. Noblesse oblige. It is to them that God revealed Himself, and lovingly guided them by speaking to them either directly (as He did to Moses) or through His prophets, His mouthpieces.
But this was not the end of this clear case of discrimination: Aaron (Moses's brother) and his tribe (Levi) alone were permitted to serve in the temple. This triggered the revolt of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. They objected to their being forbidden to perform priestly services; after all, the whole congregation was holy. Were not all Jews equal? (Nm 26). The punishment was eloquent: The earth was opened up, and they perished with their wives and children. That was God's speedy response to their revolt.
Or take the case of David. He was preceded by seven brothers, all of them presented to Samuel who, guided by God, did not recognize in any of them the one that God wanted him to anoint. Samuel asked their father whether he had more children. Yes, he was told; the youngest, David, who was tending the sheep. He was the one whom God had chosen to become King of Israel. It was God's choice. The seven brothers were "discriminated" against – but wisely did not revolt.
