Lacking by design: Why virtues
cannot be engineered

This material was originally delivered as a speech at the XIX GvH Conference in May 2025.

In contemporary discourse, D.E.I. – diversity, equity and inclusion – are treated as objectives to be achieved through policy or institutional mandates. The language used to promote these objectives often undermines the organic role which diversity plays and may cripple our natural inclination to be in need of “the other”. This paper suggests that diversity is not an objective to be engineered by policy, or a proportion to be managed — but a reflection of the human condition as it is — incomplete, limited, and therefore made for cooperation.

Saint Thomas Aquinas offers a striking theological foundation for understanding diversity. In Summa Theologica (I, Q.47, A.1), he asked the question of why would God, who embodies wholeness and unity, create a world so filled with distinctions and inequalities? Aquinas argues that diversity comes about by the intention of God to represent His goodness through creatures. As any one creature is finite and therefore cannot provide an adequate representation of God’s goodness and all of its aspects, God produces diverse creatures so that “what was wanting to one in the manifestation of the divine goodness, might be supplied by another”. Aquinas provides an insight that may seem unexpected, yet very natural: every creature, according to him, lacks some features that another creature possesses. “For goodness, which in God is simple and uniform, in creatures is manifold and divided”. We are a collection of our own features, but also a collection of features we lack—features that others possess. So, every creature both possesses and lacks; and it is in this lack — this incompleteness — that the space for cooperation and unity emerges.

Drawing on Thomas Aquinas, we may explore the idea that diversity is not merely tolerable, but ontologically necessary. If each creature possesses certain qualities and lacks others — by design — this lack is not a flaw but a space where complementarity and collaboration become necessary. Aquinas goes further, offering a comparative reflection on what humans and animals lack and possess: while lions have claws, bulls horns, and birds wings, the human being is given hands — what he calls “the organ of organs” — precisely because man is made not for brute survival, but for reasoned activity. The absence of natural weapons is thus not a deficiency, but a sign that human flourishing is meant to occur through cooperation, not combat.

This foundational insight is further developed through the lens of contemporary studies of lack, pioneered by the author, which suggest that lack is a fundamental and universal principle of being and human nature. It is a core driver of human aspiration, creativity, learning, and cooperation. Human beings strive for their aims and build relationships precisely because we are incomplete: we lack by design, and we are drawn to one another because of that lack. We are united not only by what we have, but by what we are missing — and what we find in others.

This universal paradigm applies to the realm of diversity, demonstrating that true inclusion arises from necessity and reciprocal openness, and thus is spontaneous and organic. It is inscribed in our nature and enforced by it. It is grounded in liberty, reciprocity, and curiosity — not in policy-driven proportions.

But differences can also be a source of animosity and tension. That is natural as well, since our values may differ while personal and collective histories carry their unique weight. The presence of “the other” may raise fear, just as cooperation may wound at times. Our relations lack perfection, and – like any becoming – they unfold in time. Time is needed for acquaintance and conscious unity. But, as with every mandated policy, power tends to disregard time — time that is essential for liberty to mature — and to form a choice — and to take action.

Multidisciplinary inquiries into lack — still developing across disciplines — may offer a modest extension of classical liberal insights into human agency and universal principle of lack as a driver of ingenuity and cooperation. They continue a long-standing tradition of inquiry: How do free individuals respond to their own limitations and to the scarcity of resources — including time? What forms of cooperation emerge when no one is complete, and each is in need of the other?

Here, the Austrian School of Economics opens a profound field in which economic phenomena evolve precisely because of lack, and diversity as a specific aspect of lack. The principles of subjective value and comparative advantage stem from the natural differences between individuals and groups. Exchange occurs because people value things differently. The division of labor emerges because we do not all possess the same talents, resources, and interests. Prices communicate these differences, enabling complex systems of coordination and mutual benefit — not by eliminating difference, but by depending on it. Value in the economic domain is created because of the diversity of the parties involved in an exchange.

While classical economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo understood value largely through homogeneous labor — a view that was later taken up and radicalized by Karl Marx — it was Carl Menger who formulated the theory of subjective value, grounding it in individual perception and marginal utility. For Menger, value arises not from inputs, but from the differing needs, preferences, and contexts of the individuals involved in exchange. This perspective frames diversity as a natural attraction, positioning “the other”—someone different—as both a magnet and a source of value.

It is no coincidence that many who endorse provisional D.E.I. frameworks also hold the conviction that value is created solely through hard work — overlooking that it also arises from difference — in the very act of exchange. To grasp this reality, the world needs to discover the intrinsic meaning of diversity, which organically leads to cooperation, exchange, and the creation of value. This is the diversity that humanity needs to recognise, cherish and honour.

Isn’t it striking that, in a world obsessed with enforced unity, so many still believe that in a genuine exchange one party always wins at the expense of the other? If that were true, the world would be a damned place indeed — and no amount of enforced unity would redeem it. Beware — the peril also arises when people rightly discard the DEI agenda: they risk losing the sense of genuine and beautiful diversity, and may end up retreating into marginal ideals, economic autarky, or romanticising “beautiful tariffs”. As long as diversity continues to appeal to many, we may rebrand the language and let people rediscover the rightful place of diversity in genuine cooperation, plus-sum exchange, and other authentic unity all too often dismissed by today’s ideological consensus.

As Orwell warned, language can either illuminate or corrupt thought. To defend diversity as a condition of being, the language we use  — as the grammar of being — should be reclaimed. In a world that longs for order, we are called to rediscover diversity in light of “dispersed knowledge,” as articulated by Friedrich von Hayek, to grasp how unintended order arises in complex systems where individuals possess differing information and interests.

Yet we must admit that our cooperation is never perfect, and our inclusion of “the other” always has limits — not because of ideology, but because of our own human limitations, scarcity of resources, and above all, the most scarce resource on earth, which is love. When this particular form of lack is overlooked, humanity begins to rely on policies that attempt to enforce complete and perfect unity. Understanding that lack is universal and omnipresent exposes the utopian and perilous character of such aspirations.

If reduced to a managed harmony of proportions, inclusion and equity risk undermining the true role of diversity. Equity speaks to a real human longing — the desire to be seen, included, and appreciated. But when pursued by pre-design rather than shared purpose, visibility begins to replace value, and presence stands in for contribution. It is little wonder that diversity and equity have become a new idol — if not a new deus alongside the green agenda. To please this deus, humanity sacrifices excellence for appearance.

In academic and professional life, many increasingly experience this tension personally — especially those who are “included” as representatives of a category rather than — hopefully — as bearers of value. The distinction between being recognized on the basis of merit and being positioned for ideological optics is not merely theoretical; it is existential. It puts our dignity under hazard — one that is difficult even to name. Thank you for the chance to name it here.

We are not called to level out difference, but to respond to it — freely, responsibly, and with care. Inclusion does not grow from enforcement, but from love, humility, and mutual need. It is through our shared incompleteness and complementary lacks that genuine cooperation becomes possible. And when we embrace difference and orient it toward shared causes, this gives rise to true joy and synergy.