Essay on Glenn Tinder’s Political Thinking: Chapter 3

In Chapters One and Two of Tinder’s book, Tinder (2003) postulated that political thinking is absolutely essential for all people. It provides a safe net against tyranny and oppression, and it helps societies learn how to live together collectively, as well as help people decide how to live with themselves. Tinder reflected upon the paradoxical nature of philosophy and human nature. True to form, Tinder tackles another paradox in Chapter 3, equality and inequality, asking if humans are all truly equal or unequal.

Tinder (2003) grappled with the concept of equality. He pointed out equality’s intangible essence, a word that is clearly ambiguous. People, he pointed out, are clearly not equal, and names several philosophers who supported this viewpoint. He depicted Aristotle’s views on the inequality of people in a hierarchical explanation of people’s station in life, bound by social stratification, organized in order of their ability to think rationally, with philosophers being at the top of the hierarchy, of course. Plato considered the connection with the divine the ultimate in ability, and those without that connection were somewhere in the bottom of his hierarchical model. 

Nietzsche, conveyed Tinder (2003), was more flagrant about his belief, demonstrating a willful belief rather than one structured upon cultural and personal influences. He believed people are inherently unequal, and everyone just better live with it, because some are born with their abilities, are born to be special, and the masses do everything they can to keep the great few down and pull them to their lower level. He also felt that people should just move past Christianity, seeing it as it is having its place in time, but God doesn’t exist, so man should just own up to the power each man possesses. Man is used purposefully here, because he saw women in the same light, he saw the commoners, rabble that try to suppress the great few and clearly unequal to men.

As influential as these philosophers were on Western thought, the idea that all people are unequal was opposed, and without this opposition, some of the most revolutionary moments in history probably would not have occurred, stated Tinder (2003), such as the French Revolution, communism, and the fight for equal rights in this country for minorities and women. 

The Stoics, Tinder (2003) explained, were the first to describe this opposition. The Stoic philosophers believed everyone is equal in the eyes of the divine force. This belief was carried over into Christianity. The idea that worldly power and dominance were all important were not important in the eyes of God. 

These concepts, Tinder (2003) felt, were the source of inspiration for other philosophers, such as John Locke and the writers of the Declaration of Independence. Although people differ in almost every way imaginable on a superficial level, people are born equal because they are all equal in the eyes of God, and therefore, all men must be treated as equal in nation and in law because they are inherently born with those rights.

Other ways men are equal, Tinder (2003) conveyed, were the fact that we are all human beings, and because we are all humans, we are subjected to the same human tendencies and characteristics, and we all must at some point succumb to death.

Not all philosophers looked upon equality dewy-eyed. Hobbes, for instance, stated Tinder (2003), viewed human equality through humans’ more unappealing attributes. Anyone at any time, can hold the power of life and death in their hands, and everyone is driven by ego and the need to live as long as possible. It is upon this common ground that governance can be instilled and run efficiently because the government and law should serve to uphold everyone’s common needs.

The effects of these foundations unfolded into another paradoxical situation in modern times. People did align with Nietzsche’s agnostic views, and people did expound upon the belief that there is a god and that all people are equal in the eyes of God. Yet, both factions believe in the equality of people. 

How can Christian and agnostic viewpoints both champion equality, Tinder (2003) mused? The common thread amongst Christians and atheists alike, Tinder argues, is “reason” (p. 69). Reason must not be an ability. It must be a moral, Tinder rationalized. Because of our ability to reason, people can judge what is fair and what is unjust.

However, even Kant’s reasoning doesn’t fully describe our collective belief that men are equal, described Tinder (2003), because people are not equally moral in their thinking and actions. Since this reasoning falls short, Tinder pursued the unanswered question – can we all be equal without the influence or beliefs of religious doctrine?

Despite the virulence of the idea and promotion of equality, Tinder (2003) observed, inequalities exist even in countries that have indoctrinated and pursue the idea that all people are equal. Tinder cited economic and educational inequalities exist even in America, the champion of equality. In the face of inequality, despite our efforts, Tinder asked, how can we distribute resources and power in a just manner?

This is the problem with basing everything on inequality. Inequality, such as the idea of excellence, is purely subjective, Tinder (2003) stated. Historic figures within their times were not looked upon as kindly as later generations, such as Abraham Lincoln, who was clearly a man of excellence, according to historical accounts. How does society, especially one that supports the idea of every human is equal, deal with issues of inequality such as excellence?

In the past, Tinder (2003) observed, excellence was viewed in terms of birthright. Excellence was a matter of breeding. In other words, royalty was born to rule. However, in today’s society, excellence is measured by what people do rather than any intrinsic qualities they might possess.

Historically, there were inequalities, and those inequalities were accepted as the norm, Tinder (2003) suggested. There were the excellent few that were appointed to rule. Christianity purported that we are all equal in the eyes of God, but that did not contribute much to the treatment people suffered socially. Christianity bypassed social inequality here on earth as a necessary part of everyone’s existence, and when everyone follows in the Christian ways, it all won’t matter anyway, because the reward of Heaven is above all earthly riches.

About two hundred years ago, Tinder (2003) noted, this general acceptance of the social order changed. In America, there was a new consensus that not only people are created equal in the eyes of God, but people also have inherent rights just because we are all part of the human race. They felt that social justice is important and should be delivered and its presence felt within people’s lifetime. Rousseau and Marx’s works were key in this thinking. For the first time, there wasn’t any more tolerance of societal imposed social injustices. All repressed members of society began to feel that they should govern themselves, not follow the rule of a self-appointed few. They no longer believed the idea that royalty and specialness was a byproduct of birthright. 

Tinder’s (2003) analysis of the birth of the idea of equality of social order was engaging and interesting. He demonstrates, without actually stating it explicitly, that today’s government is based upon centuries of thinking. It shows a progression, a change in zeitgeist. Perhaps this is why there is a drop-in church attendance. The church could no longer provide the salve to soothe social injustice. This, with the key ideas of Marx and Rousseau, were key in catapulting the American Revolution  and other events around the world to success and putting the power of government in the hands of the people.

Reference

Tinder, G. (2003). Political thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.