The real moral absolutism here is equality of outcome aka social justice, for social justice treats society as god and holds society as a whole responsible for eliminating all the differences between people, as if such a thing were even remotely possible, and that anything that isn't this equates to a moral failing.
And...
...its handmaiden is privilege, the thing that bestows total depravity on those who have it better than the rest, which makes them guilty if they don't admit that they have to hammer themselves down to everyone else's level.
Inner city kids in Chicago have Democrat privilege. They have the benefit of adhering to a set of cultural values that places no value on the family (which incidentally is the best wealth producing social unit ever discovered in history), follows social policies that pay women for having children out of wedlock, rendering women unwilling to commit to a husband because that's just how hypergamous female psychology works, and generally creating the single biggest socio-economic risk factor of delinquincy/criminality in men known to sociology: not having a father in the home.
In the real world, things aren't equal. We're all different heights, intelligences, races, sexes, and society can't remove those differences. Outcomes will never be equal, and pretending otherwise is delusional utopianism that puts entire civilisations at risk. If you make stupid life decisions, it's not the job of society to rescue you from the bad consequences. The religion of victimhood is a crime against humanity which promotes nothing but learned helplessness; shame to those who fall for it, but it is they and nobody else that has to own the consequences.
The right to equality is the right to not be legally prevented from a shot at something just because you don't have the right class or sex or skin colour. The right to equality, if it is a right, is a negative one, not a positive one.
Sign up with Google