Forbidden knowledge

Poor Caleb Stegall. Over on Takimag, he posted the following observation about race, IQ and, well, manners:

I have little desire to wade into the dispute between Justin and others over IQ averages and “racialism.” But it is worth at least pointing out that, whatever the merits of the argument (and I am not in the least qualified to weigh in there), there is a strong conservative rationale for simply not raising the issue of IQ averages. Namely, per Bramwell’s recent definition, that it tends to undermine the legitimacy of American institutions. While I do not accept that undermining legitimacy is always to be avoided, in the context of American race relations, to do so strikes me as a very bad thing. In more general terms, there are certain truths that any political regime must suppress. [Emphasis mine -- RD.] It may be worth discussing this issue in such terms, or at least adding this consideration.

Boy, he shouldna done that. It got real ugly in the comboxes. Richard Spencer, one of Caleb's co-bloggers there, published something civilized in criticism of Caleb:

In order that we uphold our institutions or not sever the Social Contract, Caleb and Glazer counsel self-censorship and willed ignorance—lying, however noble it may be. No one at Takimag, save Russell, has extensive background in the sciences, so I would agree that we all remain cautious and generally agnostic about genetics. There are also more important and beautiful ways for us to spend our time than obsessing about DNA.

This being said, before we start ordering laboratory researchers not to publish their findings, I think the onus in on Caleb to explain to us exactly which institutions are supported by our little egalitarian fib and how and why they’d collapse if we start honestly and seriously grappling with the findings of science. I’d add: if we need to lie willfully and publicly to keep our institutions from collapsing, then perhaps they don’t deserve to stand at all.

The discussion continued here, here, here, and here. One of the most interesting comments was made by John Zmirak, who wrote:

I think that in our post-Christian society, which cheerfully disposes of those humans whom it has dehumanized (tens of millions of fetuses, but I expect that others will be next), it might well be dangerous to throw around studies that attack even an exaggerated egalitarianism. People sense this—especially liberals, who are never far from offering free tubal ligations or euthanasia tablets. So it scares them, as it should. Please don’t convince me that it’s okay to send those people into internment camps. Please. Don’t.

His point is similar to Caleb's. Caleb says that even if it could be established that members of some races are genetically less intelligent than members of other races, what are we supposed to do with that knowledge? What public policy good can possibly come of it? John Z. rightly sees that given the post-Christian moral ethos of our culture, this could easily lead to the return of eugenics ... and we saw where that got us.

Our moral duties to our fellows do not change based on their intellectual capacities. One is required to treat the simpleton with no more and no less charity than one would treat the nuclear physicist. As I've said before, I oppose affirmative action because it is unjust, and as a general rule, I oppose the sentimental egalitarianism that we often see reflected in public policies. But one does not have to accept a theory of racial intellectual inferiority to come to those conclusions.

Indeed, if there is anything to these scientific claims about race and IQ, I don't want to know precisely because that knowledge is dangerous. I cannot think of a single law or policy we could pass based on that knowledge that would be positive, and I can think of any number we would pass that would be evil. Moreover, it would corrupt people's moral sense, especially since, as John recognizes, we live in a time in which belief in the inherent dignity of the human person is collapsing.

Are there truths that should be suppressed? Is there such a thing as knowledge that ought to be forbidden for the greater good of the whole? Yes, I think there is (the book to read is "Forbidden Knowledge," by the late Roger Shattuck). Mind you, there are always people in authority ready to suppress knowledge that ought to be made public -- usually knowledge of their own wrongdoing, or the wrongdoing of their friends and colleagues -- and who abuse the concept of the public interest. I'm not defending these people. I'm only asserting that the concepts of knowledge that ought to be forbidden, and truths that deserve to be suppressed, are important ones to our common moral life.

Forget about race for a minute. Think about Unit 731, the Imperial Japanese army's medical experiment unit, that did unspeakable things to prisoners of war in the name of improving biological warfare capabilities.

Should the US have acquired the knowledge those Japanese war criminal scientists obtained from their gruesome tortures? What would we have done with that knowledge? Well, somebody knows, because our government paid those captured Japanese scientists for their data. Documents recently unearthed show that Brigadier Gen. Charles Willoughby, who headed US intelligence in occupied Japan, wrote the following about the data:

"information procured will have the greatest value in future development of the U.S. BW (bacteria warfare) program."

If you had been Willoughby, and the decision to save or to destroy the files of Unit 731's scientists rested with you, what would you have done? If you would have burned those files, then you do believe that there is a such thing as knowledge that ought to be suppressed, including not sought, for the greater good. It only then becomes a question of where the lines are to be drawn.

Anyway, let's discuss race, IQ and (more importantly) the concept of forbidden knowledge. Must some truths be suppressed for the public good? Let me say at the outset that I know this is an extremely sensitive topic, and I will strive to be as permissive as I feel is responsible with regard to allowing controversial posts to stand. But let me say it clearly: any commentators who post openly racist remarks will find their posts removed. Strive to keep this a discussion of philosophy and ethics.