People in egalitarian times have a fundamental confusion arising from the assumption that everyone must be treated the same, and possibly raised to the same level in order for this treatment to be “equal” therefore good.
When they say that someone has died, the “correct” response is to say that it is a tragedy. On the other hand, the sane response requires that we ask who it was, and whether they were good or bad people.
After all, it is a tragedy when a good person dies, but a gift from nature when a bad person does. If the rapist, arsonist, looter, pedophile, and sociopath grifter down the street kicks off, humanity is healthier and life is better.
In fact, if every bad person died, nothing would be worse; good people would have more influence, and keep those in the middle in line.
Contrary to what we have been taught, tolerance for both good and bad means tolerance for evil, and tolerance for evil is evil, since it enables evil to achieve its ends. Tolerance for the good harms no one; the real goal is tolerance for those in the middle, since they have not yet shown a clear good/evil bias.
So what are good and evil? As the old nihilist riff goes, good is what is good for you… but that really depends on whether you are good or not. In nature, good means adaptation to the environment, so is inherently realist; disorganized and anti-realistic thought, therefore, is bad (assuming one values survival).
In the bigger picture, conservatism demands that we find a transcendental goal, or a viewpoint that accepts our reality as ultimately good despite having both good and bad within it. Good is what furthers this vision, since it furthers both adaptation and qualitative improvement, or making life better as an experience of the good.
If this seems circular, consider that the term “good” serves as a root concept. Like other notions such as truth and beauty, it cannot be defined in objective terms, only recognized by those who are able to understand it. This esoteric concept means no one definition exists for all.
Bad people argue for equality. Their strategy is to inject doubt, then claim that because their view of reality “could be” true, it is equal and must be considered true like any other viewpoint, which forces us to “compromise” with it. That way, the bad gets to be on par with the good.
In a sane society, people choose the most competent to determine what is good. Those then apply what they know and by doing so, gain more knowledge. They use this to promote good and exclude evil, leaving everyone else unmolested to enjoy whatever freedom they deserve, since in a functional society, absolute rights do not exist, only paired duties and privileges. Freedom is a privilege for the good.
Egalitarianism confuses this by insisting that every death is a tragedy and that we must treat the bad as well as we treat the good, but in economic terms, this means a subsidy for the bad at the expense of the good. This creates a death spiral as bad increases and good decreases.
Every society known to humankind has committed suicide through bureaucracy, since bureaucracy specializes in treating everyone the same, and therefore unwittingly promotes the bad, including the parasitic and non-productive, un-creative, and incompetent.
For humanity to survive into the next century, it needs to start choosing what is good, instead of choosing the utilitarian measure of tolerating everything in the misguided view that this will protect all of us from the horrors of society. Instead, it brings those horrors to life.