Declaration and today's politics.

[kamino]

How important of a role do you think that the Declaration of independence plays in today's politics?



IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

[Curious George]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The above portion is the only excerpt which has any role at present in American politics, important or otherwise. It is used by politicians of all kinds as a basis to describe the most basic rights of Americans. It is also used by religious people to argue that the founders believed in a creator and that the rights we have as Americans would not exist without that creator (God), and usually thereafter to argue in favor of some recognition or endorsement of Christianity by the federal government.

To those ends I believe it has played and continues to play a large and important role in American politics. The rest of the document is largely unknown and/or forgotten to most of the citizenry, though I suspect that if the time came to organize some new type of government, whether by peaceful or violent means, it would be re-discovered rather quickly in order to validate and guide those aims.

Edit: After having read those words numerous times it came to me quite a while ago that our country's opening argument is somewhat flawed. First, it assumes the existence of a creator (God). Second, it states that this creator endows humanity with rights which cannot be taken away. Whether or not you believe the first part of the argument, you have to wonder what they were thinking with the second part. Humans can be killed and imprisoned rather easily. In fact, our government does it all the time to both citizens and non-citizens around the world. The right to pursue happiness, well... I suppose you can't do that while you're dead, but as long as you're alive you're free to pursue happiness in whatever way you can given the limitations, whatever they may be, placed upon you. Maybe drawing stick figures on your prison cell wall makes you happy. Of course, the man might take your crayon... but if he does, you can pursue happiness in other ways... like, say... drawing stick figures in your mind?

If you read this far... you're probably wishing you hadn't.

 

[Ethereal]

Whether or not you believe the first part of the argument, you have to wonder what they were thinking with the second part. Humans can be killed and imprisoned rather easily.

Why this logical fallacy persists is beyond me. Natural rights are an idea. That an idea can be circumvented does not negate its existence or validity. Self evidence does not require the complicity of a second party, hence it is self evident.

 

[Doc Howl]

How important of a role do you think that the Declaration of independence plays in today's politics?

Not important at all. This ain't your grandfather's America.

 

[kamino]

Not important at all. This ain't your grandfather's America.

Which is truely sad.

 

[Curious George]

Why this logical fallacy persists is beyond me. Natural rights are an idea. That an idea can be circumvented does not negate its existence or validity. Self evidence does not require the complicity of a second party, hence it is self evident.

I think you're helping to make my point. The fact is that the argument for separation was based upon self-evident "truths." If I hold this "truth" to be self-evident, that I am always right, even when I'm wrong, and then make an argument for or against something else based upon that "truth," I'm going to look rather silly.

 

[Ethereal]

I think you're helping to make my point. The fact is that the argument for separation was based upon self-evident "truths." If I hold this "truth" to be self-evident, that I am always right, even when I'm wrong, and then make an argument for or against something else based upon that "truth," I'm going to look rather silly.

Why would you look silly when arguing for natural rights? I understand the subjective nature of claiming self-evidence but such ideas will always garner objective validation. There is a substantive difference between claiming the self-evidence of "I have a right to my life" as opposed to claiming "I have a right to do naked cart-wheels down the middle of the interstate". The only people who could deny such truths are either insane or have a vested interested in circumventing them.

Can you really make a logical argument that a person does not have a right to their life so long as they respect that right in others? Obviously we cannot apply scientific standards to such things as morality and philosophy, but that does not mean their conclusions have to come from an invalid line of reasoning. We affirm these rights to ourselves everyday but it's become so commonplace in contemporary society that people are taking these ideals for granted instead of charishing and championing them.

 

[Felicity]

Obviously we cannot apply scientific standards to such things as morality and philosophy, but that does not mean their conclusions have to come from an invalid line of reasoning. We affirm these rights to ourselves everyday but it's become so commonplace in contemporary society that people are taking these ideals for granted instead of charishing and championing them.

It's rampant. Lots of people (at least here at DP) seem to operate under the false impression that something has to be empirically provable to be logical. That's simply ...well...stupid.

 

[Ethereal]

It's rampant. Lots of people (at least here at DP) seem to operate under the false impression that something has to be empirically provable to be logical. That's simply ...well...stupid.

You speak sooth, fair maiden.

 

[Curious George]

Why would you look silly when arguing for natural rights? I understand the subjective nature of claiming self-evidence but such ideas will always garner objective validation. There is a substantive difference between claiming the self-evidence of "I have a right to my life" as opposed to claiming "I have a right to do naked cart-wheels down the middle of the interstate". The only people who could deny such truths are either insane or have a vested interested in circumventing them.

Oh, okay. So if I claim that I'm right, even when I'm wrong, and claim that truth to be self-evident, it would be perfectly logical for me to argue for natural rights on that basis, but not for the right to do naked cartwheels on the interstate? Forget that neither the premise, that I'm always right, nor the existence of natural rights, can actually be proven. It's that we like natural rights and not naked cartwheels? An argument in favor of something good or right, based upon a faulty premise, is still a flawed argument.

Of course, the existence of good and evil, or right and wrong, or any rights whatsoever that are independent of the minds of men, are in question. That is, dependent upon the philosophy to which one ascribes.

You probably have little to gain from continuing this conversation with me though. According to you, since I deny that the self-evident truths laid out in the Declaration are, in fact, self-evident truths, and since I have no vested interested in circumventing natural rights, I must be insane.

Can you really make a logical argument that a person does not have a right to their life so long as they respect that right in others? Obviously we cannot apply scientific standards to such things as morality and philosophy, but that does not mean their conclusions have to come from an invalid line of reasoning. We affirm these rights to ourselves everyday but it's become so commonplace in contemporary society that people are taking these ideals for granted instead of charishing and championing them.

First, let me say that I do not believe the argument for natural rights, as laid out in the Declaration, is illogical. It assumes a premise and then, based upon that premise, makes an argument. Simply, if you assume that A is true, then you can derive B from that truth. That is logical. However, you are forced to assume the truth of A before you can begin to talk about B, and that is where I find flaw in the argument.

Second, yes, I can logically argue that a person does not have a right to their life if, simply, I deny that rights exist at all. I believe that rights, like morality, were invented by man and that they do not exist in nature. If I hold that truth to be self-evident, then it is just as logical for me to make that argument as it is for anyone to argue for natural rights based upon the idea that god exists and granted those rights to men.

 

[Curious George]

Why this logical fallacy persists is beyond me. Natural rights are an idea. That an idea can be circumvented does not negate its existence or validity. Self evidence does not require the complicity of a second party, hence it is self evident.

This discussion went in a completely different direction from what you originally addressed. My bad. While I stand firm on the argument over whether or not natural rights exist, I see what you were saying here.

If you assume that we have a inalienable, god-given right to life, the fact that your life can be taken away does not mean that your right to life can be taken away.

I agree with that point.