The following gentle chiding is from a former student who considers himself a “man of the left” and has been corresponding for years.  I’ve edited our exchange for clarity and brevity.

Query:

In your post “Epigrams,” you criticized the idea of “equal results,” instead defending “equal chances.”  The problem isn’t equality, of which we can never have enough, but sameness.  What but our equal consideration for all will make us mindful of not committing injustices even in the name of equality?

Reply:

I wonder whether we are speaking past each other!  So much depends on how we use words.  We agree that equality in the sense of “sameness” is unnecessary and unjust – in your letter, you mention the differences between men and women -- and I certainly believe in being “equally considerate” to all.  However, I would rather not use your phrase “equal consideration for all,” because it is used by a lot of other writers, for example the truly wicked utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer, to mean some very strange things -- things I know you don’t support either.

Singer, his many followers, and progressives in general – you are an exception -- use the expression to mean giving equal weight to the “interests” of all, and have a twisted understanding of human interests.  Some shrink from the implications of their premises, but in the reckoning of Singer, who doesn't, sexually disordered people have an interest in bestiality (if they happen to find it pleasurable), and parents have an interest in infanticide (because babies use up resources).  If we ask “What about the interests of the babies?”, he replies that babies aren’t “persons.”  But he thinks animals are “persons” and can “consent” to being used in this way.

Perhaps we can agree that our true “interests” lie in living a flourishing life characterized by the classical virtues, which is “equally” needful for all of us.