Back to the remarkable paragraph, which I don’t know if I’ll ever finish talking about (any more than I’ll ever finish talking about the Binding of Isaac):
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...Well, and when I talked about created equal, I talked about equal but I didn’t talk about created. The statement all men are created equal implies a Creator who creates all men. All men could (conceivably) be born equal, or all men could be worthy of equal treatment, or all men should be treated equally by the law, or a just society could consider all men equal, all without a Creator. But if all men are created equal, then there is a creator. It’s self-evident.
Now, when I read through the Declaration, the statement that all men are created equal is so startling and moving that I scarcely notice that I’ve accepted the Creator until I move past the comma and into the next phrase, which takes that acceptance and builds on it. All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Notice that both of these syllogistic pieces are propped up by the existence of a Creator, but that existence isn’t given its own axiom (and if ever anything was axiomatic, that’s it). Not that Mr. Jefferson and his colleagues are making a mathematical proof, but they are sliding something in without making it a bone of contention, and doing it nicely, too. I also want to point out that it’s a choice they made; one could state the two items (equality and natural rights) without reference to a Creator, although doing so is philosophically somewhat trickier and rhetorically much less persuasive.
Now, on to the idea of unalienable, or inalienable, or natural rights. The existence of those rights does not appear to me to be self-evident, at least not in the sense of being clearly and obviously true. I’ve thought about natural rights a lot, and it’s very very very very very very very hard to make a sensible, non-tautological, consistent, and rigorous case for them. I was about to write that I have ultimately come to disbelieve in them, but I hope my position isn’t yet ultimate. I have changed my mind more than once, and I hope I live long enough to change it again. Still, at the moment I can’t see that the case for natural rights holds.
I do think that a plausible interpretation of Scripture and of Rabbinic law and custom teaches us that the Divine forbids alienating certain individual rights without compelling cause. Further, my limited reading of history leads me to believe that a state (or rules system) has a better chance of fairness and justice if it treats certain rights as if they were inalienable, or inalienable without compelling interest. Of course, these conclusions are drawn by a person raised on this Declaration, right? I have been told that people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights since before I could talk, much less before I could define endow, unalienable and Rights. Heck, I still can’t define unalienable.
No, but let’s look at it from another angle. What does Mr. Jefferson mean when he says that we have inalienable rights? Not what does he mean philosophically, but what does he mean politically? Because the point here is to get people to support the rebellion, not simply to convince people that inalienable rights exist. Well, first of all, of course, he is claiming Locke’s inheritance, and thus Locke’s authority. He’s also placing himself on Locke’s side on political questions, giving people a sense of what sort of government they can expect if the rebellion succeeds. He is assuring people that the new government, whatever form it takes, will be Lockian, rather than Hobbesian. He is also (and I talked about this earlier), removing the question of rebellion from any question of its success, or its practical results in any way. It’s a philosophical question, bloodless and intellectual.
I mean, say I’m a small land-owner in Connecticut in 1776. I may have a lingering sense of loyalty to the crown, but also a sense of grievance for what I perceive as bad or unfair policies. It doesn’t matter, does it? When I find out the rebellion has begun, my first question is Am I going to lose my farm? Depending on my age, the next questions are things like Should I go fight? and What about my sons? as well as Should I withhold taxes?, Does my musket work? and What’s the weather like in Ontario? I don’t think that are there inalienable rights? is near the top of the list. No, when Mr. Jefferson says people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, he’s not answering any question about rights at all, he’s answering a much more basic question: Can I trust you? And it’s much easier to get somebody to trust you if you are talking calmly and clearly about inalienable rights than if you are talking about bloody war, which is, after all, the topic of the whole document.
chazak, chazak, v’nitchazek,
-Vardibidian.
And if I may extend that chain by one more link, all this talk of equality and inalienable rights may communicate not only calmness and rationality but also an implicit contract with our small Connecticut landholder that once the immediate concerns of taxes and bloody war are settled (in Jefferson’s favor), the small landowner’s sacrifices won’t be tossed aside.
All very rhetorical and non-binding, but more reassuring than, “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that the Lord hath led us to these shores to found the perfection of His earthly kingdom.” Though it may be well and good in its own way as a possible option, it wouldn’t say much to the small landowners about their future place in the coming theocracy.
I think that’s a good point, although of course we are still talking about equality up, rather than equality down. The Connecticut farmer (bless him) is being assured that he will be equal to the Lords and Congressmen, rather than to the slaves and women-folk.
But generally, that’s what I meant by a Lockian government. He’s implying (as you say, not promising) that the new government will be tolerant of dissent, that it will be Liberal, and that it will be, oh, constitutional and predictable rather than moving on the whim of a monarch or a handful of oligarchs or thearchs. Theocrats? You know.
Thanks,
-V.
okay so i was looking for the origin of “polly want a cracker” (and of course i don’t remember why) and found out that first of all, the first reference to a parrot as “poll” was in an epigram (1616) by ben johnson; that it was a popular name for parrots at that time; and that it was probably immortalized in robinson crusoe (1719).
now while i was looking for this i found an interesting lecture text talking about crusoe. it’s pretty interesting, in this context of this discussion now, since the book represented sort of the half-way point between the western hemisphere as religious haven and the west as independent.
as in, “we tilled this soil. it’s ours. our right to claim it proceeds from our fundamental beliefs and therefore neither you nor the natives have a claim of similar consequence by natural law, as interpreted by us, i.e., those who are principal interpreters of this conception of the law.”
Hello Mr. Bohu,
I wish to add a clarifying comment. When the Founders stated, …”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…”, you are correct when you say that the Rights in themselves are not completely “self-evident”. The part that they (The Framers) were mainly emphasizing was that we are endowed by our CREATOR with these Rights, not emphasizing the “Rights” per se. Some of our “unalienable Rights” our obvious, and stated henceforth in the Constitution. Of course, some of the phrases set forth didn’t realize their full potential when they were penned… For instance, slavery was still a recognized practice. Many of the Founders were anti-slavery, but understood that social change was a gradual process. We people are sure slow to change, aren’t we? All men (or mankind) are equal, but the minds of some still struggle over social bias, and make the transition of equality that much harder…
Mr. Beshears,
First of all, welcome to my Tohu Bohu. I wrote this note quite a little time ago, the third or fourth of an effort to really examine the Declaration, which I never got through. I keep meaning to go back to it, though. In the meantime, feel free to browse the more recent stuff, which I hope will be interesting as well.
Anyway, I do think that Mr. Jefferson deliberately slipped in the bit about the Creator to emphasize that the rights he is positing are Creator-endowed, as opposed to being granted by a King or by a Parliament, or even by a social contract. On the other hand, I can’t agree that the Creator was the main emphasis of the sentence; the paragraph goes on to say “to secure these rights…” and “it is the Right of the People…” and then rests the argument on those Rights (particularly the Right of Representation). Where I think you make an important point is Mr. Jefferson’s implication (deliberate, of course) that there are Rights not specifically enumerated, not just individual Rights, but the rights of “Independent States”.
Thanks,
-V.