Humans

On the Relativity of Ethics, Evolution, and Behavior

by Albert Prins

The Paradox of Equality

This chapter touches upon a tension that runs throughout the entire book: can one embrace moral relativism while still maintaining that justice is preferable to injustice? This tension is not resolved here. Instead, it is deliberately left open as perhaps the most intellectually honest position for a thinking person to take.

The Dream of Equality

Key idea:
Equality is a powerful ideal, but the pursuit of equality can contain a paradox.

There is hardly an ideal that occupies humanity as deeply as equality. From the French Revolution to modern social movements, the call for fairness, justice, and equal opportunity has repeatedly emerged. People often experience inequality as an injustice, as something that should be corrected.

But here a fundamental question arises: what if inequality is not only a problem, but also a condition that makes movement possible?

What if complete equality were to remove certain sources of human motivation?

This reflection is not about justifying injustice or exploitation. It concerns something more subtle and paradoxical: the possibility that inequality is not merely a problem to be solved, but that differences and tensions can also be important sources of human motivation, change, and development.

Nietzsche and the Power of Jealousy

The Bible regards envy as a sin. "You shall not covet," declares the Tenth Commandment. Envy is commonly viewed as a destructive emotion that can undermine relationships and consume people from within. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, however, approached such emotions from a different perspective.

Nietzsche did not regard feelings of envy, jealousy, and resentment simply as moral failings that should be suppressed. Instead, he saw them as phenomena that reveal something about human nature. When a person envies someone else, they acknowledge that the other person possesses something they themselves consider valuable. Jealousy can therefore point to a difference between who we are and who we would like to become.

Nietzsche referred to the embittered form of this response as ressentiment: a condition in which a person transforms their inability to attain a certain ideal into hostility toward the person who embodies it. Rather than developing themselves, they may attempt to pull the other person down. Ressentiment leads not to growth, but to bitterness. Nietzsche regarded ressentiment as an important psychological force behind certain forms of morality that, in his interpretation, could arise from powerlessness and oppression.

But the same confrontation with difference can produce a very different outcome. A successful neighbor, a brilliant scientist, a strong athlete, or a creative artist may initially evoke feelings resembling jealousy, but these emotions can ultimately turn into admiration and ambition. In that case, the difference is not denied but recognized as a challenge.

From this perspective, jealousy has a dual meaning. It can imprison people in bitterness, but it can also serve as a signal pointing toward possibilities for development. The feeling seems to say: there is something here that I admire, something I might perhaps achieve myself.

Nietzsche probably would not have argued that inequality should disappear. On the contrary, he regarded differences in strength, talent, character, and creative ability as an unavoidable part of human existence. It is precisely these differences that, in his view, can set people in motion. It is not the absence of inequality, but confrontation with inequality, that can provide an impulse toward self-overcoming, growth, and creativity.

In this sense, inequality assumes a paradoxical role. Although differences between people can create tension, they can simultaneously be an important source of human development. Without the awareness that others possess knowledge, skills, or achievements that we do not yet possess, an important part of our motivation to learn, work, and improve ourselves might disappear. It is often precisely the differences between people that move them forward.

The Lesson of Nature: Energy Flows from Difference Toward Equilibrium

Nature does not know abstract ideals; physical systems follow the laws of nature. One fundamental phenomenon is that differences in pressure, temperature, height, electrical potential, or chemical concentration can, under suitable conditions, lead to movement or exchange.

Nowhere is this easier to visualize than with two connected rain barrels.

Imagine two rain barrels standing next to each other, connected by a hose. One barrel is full, filled to the brim with rainwater. The other is empty. As soon as the connection is established, water begins to flow from full to empty, from higher to lower, from more to less. There is movement, there is energy, there is activity. The movement arises because there is a difference in water level and therefore in potential energy.

Now imagine that both barrels are filled to exactly the same level. Nothing flows. Nothing happens. The system is completely still. Once equilibrium has been reached, the driving force for a net flow of water between the two barrels has disappeared.

This should not, however, be interpreted as meaning that "everything being equal" automatically corresponds to maximum entropy. In thermodynamics, what matters is the distribution of energy and matter within a given system and the accessibility of possible microstates.

The same principle can be observed throughout nature. Wind arises partly because of differences in air pressure; the pressure difference provides a driving force for the movement of air. Rivers flow because one point lies higher than another; a difference in elevation drives water toward the sea. Electric current flows because a potential difference exists between two points; that difference makes it possible to power our homes. Even life itself, in its most basic biological form, depends on chemical gradients and differences in available energy.

Physical systems can spontaneously evolve toward equilibrium states. In many physical processes, differences in temperature, pressure, concentration, or electrical potential provide a driving force for change. When such differences disappear, the associated net flow also disappears.

A qualification is necessary here. The laws of thermodynamics describe physical systems, not human societies. The rain barrel does not know that it is flowing; human beings make choices.

As a metaphor, however, this principle can also be applied to human development, although human reality is obviously much more complex than a physical system.

What the physical analogy does illustrate is a structural principle: differences can be a source of movement and change. Whether the same principle applies to human motivation remains an open question, but everyday experience seems to support it to some extent: someone who has nothing to desire may also lose an important reason to act.

Inequality Alone Is Not Enough

Key question: Are differences alone sufficient to make development and progress possible?

But that is not the whole story. A potential difference by itself is not sufficient to produce movement. There must also be a possibility through which that potential can actually be converted into activity.

Consider the two rain barrels again.

When one barrel is completely full and the other is empty, there is a clear difference in height and pressure. Yet not a single drop of water will flow as long as the valve between the two barrels remains closed. The system possesses potential, but that potential remains completely contained.

Only when the connection is opened can the water begin to flow and the stored potential energy be converted into movement.

The same principle can be seen throughout nature.

A rock resting on top of a wall possesses gravitational potential energy. Yet nothing happens as long as the wall continues to support the rock. Only when the support disappears can the potential energy be converted into kinetic energy and the rock begin to fall.

A battery contains electrical energy. But without a closed electrical circuit, that energy remains stored and no electric current flows.

A seed contains the genetic information necessary to develop into a tree. Yet it will not germinate without water, nutrients, oxygen, and sunlight. The potential is present, but the necessary conditions are missing.

Differences alone are not sufficient for development; the conditions that allow those differences to be realized must also be present.

This principle seems applicable not only to physical systems.

Human development also appears to depend on two conditions.

First, differences exist between people. No one is born with exactly the same combination of talents, intelligence, creativity, temperament, interests, and physical abilities. This human variation can contribute to the resilience and adaptability of a society.

But these differences alone are not sufficient.

There must also be an environment in which people have the freedom to develop their abilities.

When a society forces everyone to perform the same profession, adopt the same beliefs, or live the same way, much of the available potential remains unused. Not because the talents are absent, but because the circumstances necessary for those talents to develop are absent.

Freedom therefore acquires a meaning that goes beyond a moral ideal.

Freedom is one of the conditions under which differences can develop into creativity, innovation, and social development.

A society that provides room for different talents, ideas, and initiatives increases the likelihood that new solutions will emerge to problems that are still unknown today.

This does not mean that complete freedom is always desirable. A river, for example, does not flow randomly in every direction; it follows the possibilities offered by the landscape. Freedom without any direction or structure is not flow, but chaos.

It is therefore not a matter of unlimited freedom, but sufficient room for differences to develop.

We can summarize this general principle as follows:

Development requires two conditions:

  1. Differences or potential must exist.
  2. Conditions must exist that allow these differences to be realized.

This principle can be recognized at almost every level of reality.

Perhaps there is a general lesson here that nature can teach us.

Differences can be a source of change.

But only when a system provides room for those differences to express themselves can development take place.

Short-Circuiting or Harnessing Potential

Yet not every way in which a difference disappears is equivalent.

There are two ways to make such a difference disappear. The first is a wide, direct pipe: the water rushes immediately from the full barrel to the empty one. The difference disappears and there has been movement, but little useful work has been extracted. Much of the available energy may instead be dissipated as heat, turbulence, and sound. Energy is certainly transformed, but little of the available energy is used for organized or useful work.

The second method involves the same difference, but the water first passes through a waterwheel before reaching the other side. Here too, the difference ultimately disappears. But along the way, the water drives something: a wheel turns, electricity can be generated, and something new is produced.

Both processes end at the same point: equality. The difference eventually disappears, but the way in which it disappears partly determines how much useful work can be extracted from the process.

A similar distinction may apply to the way people deal with inequality.

When wealth is simply transferred without connecting that transfer to opportunities for development, the existing difference may be reduced without necessarily creating new economic or social potential.

When the same resources are instead used for education, tools, infrastructure, or access to capital, they can contribute to developing new potential.

The question is therefore not so much whether a difference disappears, but how it disappears. Reducing inequality can take either a consumptive or a productive form. It can merely reduce an existing difference, but it can also be combined with education, investment, and development, thereby creating new potential.

Perhaps this is the sharpest form of the lesson that nature teaches us: the essence lies neither in the existence of a difference nor in its disappearance, but in what happens along the way.

The Great Paradox: Striving for What Could Undermine Our Motivation

Here a paradox in human existence unfolds. Human beings strive for equality, justice, and fair distribution. This striving is deeply rooted in our culture and biology; it is a characteristic of our species. Yet an interesting tension arises here: the desire for greater equality can stem from a human need for justice, while differences can at the same time be a source of motivation and change.

A world of perfect equality would probably remove certain sources of human motivation, but not necessarily human motivation itself. Why would a person still get out of bed, write a book, start a company, or enter into a relationship? Even without differences between people, curiosity, love, play, care, and the desire to understand could still motivate people to act.

The more important question is therefore not whether every form of human motivation arises from inequality, but how much motivation arises from a difference between the current situation and a desired situation. Complete equality could remove an important source of human motivation: the difference between what is and what could be.

This does not mean that we should stop striving for a more just world. On the contrary. It means that we should value the striving itself, rather than merely the final destination. The journey toward equality is where life takes place. Every step toward greater justice, every victory over injustice, is part of the life worth living.

There is also a second form of inequality that is often overlooked: the difference between who we are today and who we could become tomorrow. Even if all people possessed exactly the same opportunities, resources, and talents, this difference would remain. Human beings live not only through comparison with others, but also through the tension between their present condition and their possible future. Perhaps this is ultimately the most fundamental inequality of all.

Conclusion: Inequality as a Condition of Life

The world is characterized by differences. Not because inequality is always just — it certainly is not — but because differences in many natural processes provide conditions for movement, exchange, and change.

Envy, when transformed into ambition, can become a compass pointing toward a difference that we ourselves wish to bridge.

Perhaps wisdom does not lie in achieving equality, but in consciously and courageously continuing to strive toward it. In the meantime, we can enjoy the energy generated by that striving. We can recognize that life itself — breathing, moving, and growing — exists because there are still differences to which we can respond.

One might object: if ethics is relative and morality is a biological construct, why should the pursuit of justice be called "noble"? The answer offered by this book is not that justice is an absolute value, but that striving for justice can be functional for society, for the individual, and for the species. "Noble" is therefore not a metaphysical predicate here, but a human evaluation of behavior that we regard, over the longer term, as desirable and conducive to a functioning society.

And so the most alive human being may not be the one who has found equality, but the one who moves toward it with passion and open eyes.