hen the framers of the U. S. Constitution exclaimed that “All men are created equal,” there is a manifestly straightforward sense in which what they said is unequivocally false.  If anything is obvious it is obvious that human beings differ widely from one another in just about every conceivable way—not least among these ways is in terms of abilities.  Once we move beyond very rudimentary activities, it becomes apparent ever so quickly that human differ widely in their abilities. 

The framers, of course, were talking about moral equality.  And it would never have occurred to them to associate moral equality with equality in terms of natural talent.  Whatever else is true, it is true that Thomas Jefferson did not think for a moment that the average American, of whatever color, was his equal in natural abilities.  Yet, Jefferson could have thought that in terms of moral standing the lowliest of individuals was his equal.

What is most fascinating is that the decline in moral objectivity is giving rise to the view that the abilities which people have is the ultimate measure of moral equality between individuals.  And that is a fundamental mistake. 

Morality gives people a platform upon which they can stand regardless of their differences.  And by taking morality seriously, we have thereby given people a conduit to seeing their lives as having meaning; for a person could take pride in the fact she or he is as upright being even if the person did not excel in other ways. 

Notice that the precipitous decline of objective morality has undermined—or better: destroyed—a moral platform that in times past given meaning to many lives.  It is thus no accident that people do not take pride in being decent in the way that they once did.  There is a very straightforward sense in which culture is denying people that possibility. 

But it gets worse, because people are trying to fill the void that has been left by the rejection of objective morality.  And one sign of this is that idea that we are all equally talented.  Let me explain. 

Of course, it is absolutely wrong to berate people.  Yet, what surely does not follow from this is that we should pretend that there are no differences between people in terms of abilities.  It is certainly silly to cancel sports games or to cast aside keeping score in the name of eliminating the idea of winners and losers. 

For one thing, the very idea of winning and losing is a wonderful metaphor for life itself, where we win some and we lose some.  The idea, of course, is to keep on playing the game.  So, there is an invaluable lesson of persistence that is learnt from the simple practice of games that involve winning and losing.  Likewise, there is the lesson that life goes on; and that what seemed at the moment like the end of everything was not that all.  These are, in fact, wonderful experiences to have. 

Finally, in this vein there is the idea of learning what we are good at doing; and nothing contributes more to that insight than actually doing things where there is the possibility for genuine success and failure.  This is because some things can be grasped only when they are experienced in real time, where there is the prospect of actual gains and losses. 

When morality was taken seriously, everyone understood that moral character was one thing and abilities regarding intellect and sports were another.  Thus, people had a vantage point from which to take themselves seriously that was independent from the abilities.  Religion, too, accomplished this.  And it is one of the very shortcomings on the part of Richard Dawkins that he gave this no thought at all.

The surprise, then, is that what may seem like none other than a relic of superstition is fundamentally important to us, simply because human beings need a way of affirming themselves that is fully independent of their abilities.  Accordingly, morality and love operated in tandem, with morality standing as a kind of public equivalent of the intimate. 

Precisely what we want is the theoretical machinery that undergirds the idea that differences in natural abilities do not make the difference in our humanity.  The idea that we all have the same abilities is none other than a lesson in frustration.  Moral objectivity has a much more fundamental place in our lives than we, with all of our cleverness, have been willing to acknowledge.