| Author |
Topic:
Declaration of Independence - Philosophical Issues
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
5/23/07 11:21pm
Subject:
RE: Declaration of Independence - Philosophical Issues
|
|
I don't think Jefferson was speaking for you.
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are" 
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
5/24/07 1:03am
Subject:
RE: Declaration of Independence - Philosophical Issues
|
Unless you're delusional enough to believe God has a special place in his heart, right at the top, for Americans - then yes, he was.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/24/07 1:06am
Subject:
RE: Declaration of Independence - Philosophical Issues
|
Ender_Sai posted:
Unless you're delusional enough to believe God has a special place in his heart, right at the top, for Americans - then yes, he was.
E_S
I think the part was the "We hold" bit, with we being the signers.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
5/24/07 1:23am
Subject:
RE: Declaration of Independence - Philosophical Issues
|
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
Ender_Sai posted:
Unless you're delusional enough to believe God has a special place in his heart, right at the top, for Americans - then yes, he was.
E_S
I think the part was the "We hold" bit, with we being the signers.
I got that; but he's speaking of something that's above any pact between founders or even Americans and their state. They may believe those truths are self-evident; but they're basing an entire body of work on that premise which is about mankind.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Fluke_Groundrunner
Registered:
Jun '01
|
Date Posted:
5/24/07 7:50am
Subject:
RE: Declaration of Independence - Philosophical Issues
|
Here is an essay that may contribute to this topic.
It seems to me that the 'reasonable' assumption of self-evident truths can be defined as:
"And that higher law is, at bottom, the law of individual liberty and, as a corollary, individual responsibility."
I am born with the self-evident right to pursue, let's say a piece of land, but I can only do so through acting responsible. I 'can' kill a person and take their land, but that isn't a reasonable thing to do. Would you do it? No. So there you go. That would be infringing upon someone else's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness."
-----signature-----
Star Wars Association of Pittsburgh http://www.pittsburghfanforce.com
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
5/24/07 8:23am
Subject:
RE: Declaration of Independence - Philosophical Issues
|
Except that it didn't address a very important issue...in a Declaration it is not required to prove your position. Only to state it.
J-Rod is exactly on point here. The founders took a stance on a constitutional set of arbitrary values. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is merely another way of saying "we don't care whether they are true or not, and we're not going to debate the point."
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Fluke_Groundrunner
Registered:
Jun '01
|
Date Posted:
5/24/07 8:25am
Subject:
RE: Declaration of Independence - Philosophical Issues
|
I now have a better understanding of the argument that is occurring. It just took me a bit to catch up 
I’m going to replace “self-evident” for a moment with “sacred and undeniable” (as was suggested the text originally read). One can deny someone the right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, even though that right is “undeniable.” For example, I could kill someone and deprive them of their right to ‘life’. I am denying what has been stated as the undeniable, but in doing so I would be depriving that person’s undeniable right to live, and that is not reasonable, or rather, not demonstrating individual responsibility.
-----signature-----
Star Wars Association of Pittsburgh http://www.pittsburghfanforce.com
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
5/24/07 9:15am
Subject:
RE: Declaration of Independence - Philosophical Issues
|
That all sounds perfectly "reasonable" to me. But it would be just as reasonable to declare that as the state provides you with a stable environment in which to be born and protection from outside enemies, you exist only at its pleasure and to serve it. The state owns your ass.
Of course, Jefferson and company understood that their bid for independence was going to depend on a popular uprising, so the declaration was designed to appeal to the stakeholders in the conflict.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Fluke_Groundrunner
Registered:
Jun '01
|
Date Posted:
5/24/07 10:27am
Subject:
RE: Declaration of Independence - Philosophical Issues
|
Jabbadabbado posted:
That all sounds perfectly "reasonable" to me. But it would be just as reasonable to declare that as the state provides you with a stable environment in which to be born and protection from outside enemies, you exist only at its pleasure and to serve it. The state owns your ass.
Of course, Jefferson and company understood that their bid for independence was going to depend on a popular uprising, so the declaration was designed to appeal to the stakeholders in the conflict.
I don't know. It sounds to me like the state is to serve at the consent of the people, in order to secure these 'resaonable' rights. If you don't infringe upon the 'resaonable' (self-evident, sacred, and undeniable) rights of others as you pursue your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness, then the state does not own your ass. However, as a practical matter of enforcement, the state must exist to ensure the rights, even if that means violating them to do so.
-----signature-----
Star Wars Association of Pittsburgh http://www.pittsburghfanforce.com
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
5/24/07 11:38am
Subject:
RE: Declaration of Independence - Philosophical Issues
|
We need to back up a little and veer of into the realm of science fiction.
If I were a leader of a colony on the moon that wanted to declare independence from some government on earth (probably the Chinese) and wanted to craft a document to enshrine the founding principles of my new state, we agree that I could declare just about anything I wanted as the foundational principles of my lunar state. I could declare the founding principle to be that I was supreme commander of the moon (along with my descendants) in perpetuity by divine right (the divinity in this case being of course the Chinese moon goddess Chang'e) my authority to govern being also clearly derived from a squad of lasergun-equipped battle robots, secretly on loan to me from the Japanese.
What if through careful analysis I concluded my battle bots weren't going to be enough to carry the day and gain soveignty from the Chinese? I might then reach out to my fellow colonists to join in the fight for independence. This might influence the way I wrote my declaration, since above all that would serve as my central marketing piece to get the moonfolk on board with the war. Consequently, my foundational principles might reflect the interests of the people who would have to do the fighting, if only because marketing research suggested that installing me as supreme ruler was a non starter in terms of getting people jazzed up for a protracted insurgency.
No need here to delve into the irrational realm of "natural rights" for an explanation of what's going on and why.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
5/24/07 2:42pm
Subject:
RE: Declaration of Independence - Philosophical Issues
|
That's precisely my point, Jabba. Maybe I've spent too much time studying and immersing myself in politics that I have this cynicism which leads me to conclude it's all about smoke, mirrors, and manipulation.
Though I think you really must look to the actual concept of what a right is. Ifyou unplug it from the wall socket, to turn off that glowing haze and looped sample of an angelic choir, it's simply a political construct. It is something which is enshrined in common constitutional law as being an unalienable privilige. The State concedes X condition to it's people to ensure good, transparent, fair and successful governance. The State also accepts and acknowledges that abandoning these rights is out of the question without fundamentally altering the authority which is granted to the State.
Only through a combination of human arrogance and the desire to add meaning and purpose to our lives do we begin to add layers of divine purpose to these political contracts.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
BlueMist
Registered:
Nov '03
|
Date Posted:
5/24/07 8:16pm
Subject:
RE: Declaration of Independence - Philosophical Issues
- Date Edited:
5/24/07 8:18pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
BlueMist
|
Jabbadabbado posted:
Lincoln rewrote Jefferson's language as follows: "...and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." This is how we should understand the Declaration.
So the State defines and grants certain privileges in its charter. If we allow that there is a practical aspect to this grant, it does not necessitate that practicality should be the only aspect. The founders were the State, but they were also subjects of the State who considered their personal welfare, aspirations, and ideals in drafting a lofty document.
A system of checks and balances was also introduced in an attempt to conserve the Constitution. But Washington did not become king for other than political reasons.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jediflyer
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
5/24/07 9:58pm
Subject:
RE: Declaration of Independence - Philosophical Issues
|
The State concedes X condition to it's people to ensure good, transparent, fair and successful governance. The State also accepts and acknowledges that abandoning these rights is out of the question without fundamentally altering the authority which is granted to the State.
Which comes first, Ender, the chicken or the egg?
Natural Rights philosophy has less to do with divine authority and more to do with this question. It holds that the people are more fundamental than the state and thus they created it for their benefit.
This is clearly what happened with the United States. The people created a new state and gave it limited powers. There was no compromise or concession by the state.
P.S. If you want to debate natural rights, stop addressing Jefferson and start citing Locke and Hobbes.
-----signature-----
As long as the differences and diversities of mankind exist, democracy must allow for compromise, for accommodation, and for the recognition of differences. -Eugene McCarthy
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
5/24/07 10:14pm
Subject:
RE: Declaration of Independence - Philosophical Issues
|
Hobbes main problem was he was guilty of confusing is/ought problems with natural rights, when he was a main proponent of differentiating is/ought problems.
But what Wallace argues, and I use this essay because it was something that supports my thinking, is that a social contract does not have to intuit anything more into rights than a mere political tool.
You are still implying that as people came before the state, so did these rights which were fundamental to pre-state man, right?
Yeah, that's fluffy and happy and all, but what good is a right which cannot be exercised?
In order for it to be exercised, it must be exercised against something - ie a constraint. Much like, say, a state? 
You're assuming because we were able, we had a right. Not so much, Jediflyer.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jediflyer
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
5/24/07 10:21pm
Subject:
RE: Declaration of Independence - Philosophical Issues
|
No, I'm saying (as well as Locke and Hobbes) that states are formed to protect individuals life, liberty, and property; individuals cannot protect these on there own. Since the protection of these is the purpose of the state, they are individual rights which the state cannot violate.
Hence, they are natural (not given by the state) rights.
-----signature-----
As long as the differences and diversities of mankind exist, democracy must allow for compromise, for accommodation, and for the recognition of differences. -Eugene McCarthy
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
