Jump to content

All Men Are Created Equal


Legion
 Share

Recommended Posts

“We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal…”

 

What does this mean to you? It seems clear to me that the uniqueness of every individual and the freedom of will necessitate that some people will be more passionate than others, some will be more respected than others, and some will be more graceful than others. So in what sense did the founders mean that all people are created equal? In what sense are all men equal when it is patently obvious to any woman looking for a mate that men are not at all equal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Equal in the sense of rights. If one person has the right to eat the food which he produced himself, then the other should be too. If one person has the right to not be tortured, then the other person got the same right. And so on. The basic rights are: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, which originally was by George Mason: "That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." Which in turn came from John Locke: "...no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal…”

 

What does this mean to you? It seems clear to me that the uniqueness of every individual and the freedom of will necessitate that some people will be more passionate than others, some will be more respected than others, and some will be more graceful than others. So in what sense did the founders mean that all people are created equal? In what sense are all men equal when it is patently obvious to any woman looking for a mate that men are not at all equal?

 

Off the cuff LR...I would think that it is more a reference to our status at birth......all being equal in the potential for their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal…”

 

What does this mean to you? It seems clear to me that the uniqueness of every individual and the freedom of will necessitate that some people will be more passionate than others, some will be more respected than others, and some will be more graceful than others. So in what sense did the founders mean that all people are created equal? In what sense are all men equal when it is patently obvious to any woman looking for a mate that men are not at all equal?

 

I agree with Hans here Legion. Nice to see you too by the way :clap: I think this is more meant toward the equality of freedom, and rights to all peoples, instead of the 'ole kingship ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Hans, End, and Yoyo for the responses.

 

Equal in the sense of rights.

Well Hans the rest of that quote is as follows…

 

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

 

This seems to support your assertion that they were speaking of an equality of rights. But it’s also clear that they thought these were rights that were unalienable, which I take to mean cannot be taken away. But it seems clear to me that it is quite possible to deprive a person of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We can kill them; we can imprison them; we can harass them in such a way as to thwart every attempt to obtain happiness.

 

Off the cuff LR...I would think that it is more a reference to our status at birth......all being equal in the potential for their lives.

End does the child born with Downs Syndrome have the same potential in life as a child born healthy and whole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to support your assertion that they were speaking of an equality of rights. But it’s also clear that they thought these were rights that were unalienable, which I take to mean cannot be taken away. But it seems clear to me that it is quite possible to deprive a person of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We can kill them; we can imprison them; we can harass them in such a way as to thwart every attempt to obtain happiness.

That's very true. But the word "rights" is also a concept which depends on certain underlying conditions which is that they only go to a certain extent, and that even if you are born with this right, it doesn't mean you can't forfeit it by improper use of other rights and duties.

 

For instance, Person A and person B, both have rights to life and liberty. Person B kills person A, intentionally and deprive A from life. B has now forfeited the rights to liberty, and even perhaps the right to life. One person's right can not override another person's equal rights. That part is not stated in the document, but is built upon (or even inferred from this text) through the philosophy of law.

 

In other words, for equal rights to exist, there must be counter-balance when needed when someone overtakes and misuse their rights/duties. It's not perfect, and it won't work all the time, but it's kind of the basic principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you say then Hans that the State is the final arbiter of rights? I mean, in the last analysis are people’s rights what we all say and agree that they are? If so, I somehow sense that this isn’t what the founders had in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you say then Hans that the State is the final arbiter of rights? I mean, in the last analysis are people’s rights what we all say and agree that they are? If so, I somehow sense that this isn’t what the founders had in mind.

I guess, as humanity, we're still trying to figure that one out... :HaHa:

 

Well, the State is needed as a supervisor of the rights. A democracy is supposed to allow the populace to influence how the state is handling it. I think though that with the kind of complex society we have today, the people's voice is lost and the state has taken on its own power, and we have in some ways gone astray from the founders intentions. And the future state will be of even more power. I don't think there is a way back, and even if we did, our current situation will reoccur. So if your question is if this is a good thing or not, I would not be able to answer you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.