Is the American Declaration of Independence Based on a Lie ?

Reply to Dachshund Historically, one can view the Declaration of Independence as a marketing document (it was meant to be read and posted throughout the colonies) to justify rebellion and the tremendous loss of life (of poor people of course). The hypocrisy of the writers is well established, but no more than most marketing campaigns that are designed to sell a product or service, in this case an idea. Such it is to be human.

Reply to Dachshund

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" is true iff they held that "all men are created equal" is a self-evident truth.

So assuming they were honest, it isn't a lie, even if men aren't created equal.

Reply to Michael

Thomas Jefferson owned around 200 negro slaves at the time he signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, so therefore , it seems to me he knew full well he was lying when he wrote the egalitarian sentiments that appear in the preamble?

Regards

Dachshund

Reply to Rich

What did more to inflame revolutionary sentiment among the people after the war against the British began in 1775, was the Englishman Tom Paine's widely read political pamphlet of 1776, "Common Sense". Tom Pain was an egalitarian utopist par excellence - a socialist through and through, and the egalitarian content of "Common SEnse" was very sincere and passionately felt, I believe. Also, I am sure that Tom Paine and his "Common Sense" were tremendous influences on Jefferson at the time (1776) and, the real "author" of the preamble to the American Declaration of Independence was, in fact, Tom Paine ?

Reply to Dachshund Yes, I agree. Paine later moved to France. That he was a profound writer with his own motivations, does not imply that the cause and the money behind the cause did not have other motives.

I thought it was 'equal in dignity and rights'. But the whole rationale for slavery is founded on the notion that slaves are not men, but only (charitably) 'boys', rather as dogs are. And this too is self evident, precisely because 'all men are created equal.'

Reply to unenlightened

That was not how the ancients, Aristotle, for example, justified slavery in classical antiquity. For Aristotle, slaves were very much men (i.e. human beings,homo sapiens) /though they were human beings who possessed a material deficiency of reason ( cognitive capacity) relative to the norm.This being the case they were only fit for basic types of labour and needed , as well, to be quite strictly supervised lest they stray "off task" or engage themselves in foolish, wayward or purposeless , etc; behaviours.

Regards

Dachshund

Reply to Dachshund I suspect that the ancients did not believe that all men were equal, so the case is entirely different anyway. My point is that the category of 'equals' whether it is 'men' or 'citizens' or whatever, is defined recursively by the group to include or exclude women, blacks, the insane, the property-less, immigrants, natives, and so on. Whatever or whoever is excluded is not equal, and the truth is 'self-evident'. 'We' do not ask 'them' whether they are equal or not.

With regard to slavery, the following passage condemning slavery was contained in the original Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson, but it was deleted in order to gain passage:

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." http://www.blackpast.org/primary/declaration-independence-and-debate-over-slavery

The question of slavery and the phrase "all men are created equal" drew criticism at the time of signing.
"In 1776, abolitionist Thomas Day responding to the hypocrisy in the Declaration wrote, though the first draft stated " All free men are created equal": If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal#Slavery_and_the_phrase

Regardless, the truth of the statement "all men are created equal" is unaffected even if those who uttered it were hypocrites.

Quoting Dachshund

In the preamble to the American Declaration of Independence of 1766, Thomas Jefferson wrote that, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..."

But it has always seemed to me that what is a self-evident truth is the precise opposite, namely, that all men are NOT created equal. This passage of the American creed has always struck me as an absolutely monstrous lie.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,' is not a matter of fact, it's a matter of principal, value, one that I endorse. As Hanover noted, that's true whether or not the writers were hypocrites. All people are created equal in that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights. How is that self-evidently wrong? Why is it monstrous? For me, it is a bedrock value of any legitimate society.

This is a concept that may have its origin in Roman law, which in turn was influenced by the Stoic conception of natural law.

In natural law, all persons are equal. Slavery in Roman law was a legal status, imposed after birth, by the Civil Law. The Roman jurist Ulpian therefore described slavery as being contrary to nature. Slaves were people like everyone else, but by operation of law, as it were, they did not have the legal status of free persons. Their status was more similar to the status of property regarding what they could or could not do, and regarding what could or could not be done to them. But, in certain limited respects, over time, they came to be treated more as persons than property under the law.

When given their freedom, they attained full legal status as persons, not property (although former slaves, called freedmen, were considered social inferiors to those who had never been slaves). But a Roman citizen's status in the law was greater than that of free persons who were not citizens.

Dear Mr Clark,

I disagree entirely.

The principle of hierarchy, as opposed to equality , has existed as long as civilisation itself. Every major domain of human life activity: the family, religion, education, labour, politics and government, interpersonal relationships has traditionally been structured hierarchically. Almost all successful societies, have, for example, been characterised by patriarchy and parental authority.

I believe it is fair to say that hierarchy ( the existence of which presupposes authority) is, in fact intrinsic to human existence ( i.e. humanbeing, as such). The human mode of being is conspicuously shot through entirely with hierarchy...

In my view it is important here to appreciate that the true opposite of equality is not inequality, but quality.. Culture, for instance is ordered intellectual life; it is a maturing and self-perfecting form which calls for an ever higher grade of personality. Human society, as I say, exists on the basis of quality rather than equality of men... strong natures and weak natures, temperaments and personalities born to lead or not to lead, the creative and the talentless, the honourable and the ignoble, the forthright and the passive, the conscientious and industrious and the lazy and idle, the ambitious and the amotivated.

It is precisely through the creation of ordered, organic hierarchies of interdependent higher and lower levels of authority that human( and animal) societies have -over the countless millenia - efficiently addressed and effectively managed the myriad natural differences in the human substance. But it is essential to bear in mind the process of incremental adjustments that are necessary to achieve this end require 100s and sometimes 1000s of years to hone and refine.

This is precisely why the Enlightenment notions of egalitarian utopism espoused by French thinkers like Diderot, Voltaire, Rousseau and Montesquieu in the 18th century proved such a disaster for humanity when they were ultimately used to ground the kind of political ideology that inspired the Jacobin communist insurrection in Paris that began with the storming of the Bastille in 1789. The dreadful "reign of terror" and senseless blood-letting that followed in the years of 1793 and 1794 were without precedent in the modern era.

I think the horrors of the French revolution served well to demonstrate what happens when centuries of carefully cultivated traditional modes of natural hierarchy and authority are suddenly, recklessly and violently destroyed and replaced with an unnatural ,egalitarian, utopist re-ordering of society.

But the lesson was not learned... In the 20th century, Marxist egalitarian ideology gave rise to a series of monstrous totalitarian regimes, for example: dialectical materialism in the former Soviet Union under Stalin, Mao Zedong's equalitarian "Cultural Revolution" in Red China, Pol Pot's primitive attempt to establish a radical, agrarian communist utopia in Cambodia in the 1970, etc; that saw literally 100s of millions of human beings ruthlessly slaughtered by their own governments.

Indeed, the Cold War arms race between the West and Communism came to threaten the very existence of humanity itself. Who could ever forget how the entire world was transfixed in terror by the surreal nightmare of impending apocalypse, as the insane, brinkmanship of total thermonuclear global annihilation played out between Jack Kennedy and his Whitehouse advisors in the US and their Soviet adversaries in Nikita Krushchev's Kremlin at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the October of 1962?

These are some of reasons I am so opposed to socialist/communist political ideologies founded on what I would argue is the demonstrably false egalitarian delusion that "all men are created equal". They are not, and if one tries toforce them to be - disaster, devastation, misery and suffering are always the inevitable consequences.

Regards

Dachshund

Quoting Dachshund

The principle of hierarchy, as opposed to equality , has existed as long as civilisation itself. Every major domain of human life activity: the family, religion, education, labour, politics and government, interpersonal relationships has traditionally been structured hierarchically.

I'm trying to decide whether or not what you've written contradicts what Jefferson and I say. Not sure.
Tom was not a communist. He was an elitist and I'm sure he would agree with some of what you wrote. Either way, I don't agree with your take. I'm riding in a car right now. Hard to write. I'll think more about it and write more later.

Is it fair to assume you are one of the quality people?

Reply to T Clark

No, I am just an average Joe - nothing special, no special talents or skills really. Politically, I am an Edmund Burke - type conservative - (maybe even a little to the right of old Edmund actually, in that I am sympathetic to Traditionalism).

Reply to Dachshund

To pair Diderot's political and philosophical thought with Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu demonstrates a superficial understanding of them. Diderot was highly critical of both Voltaire and Rousseau, and his political ideas differ from theirs in myriad ways. Robespierre was tyrannical, and as Jonathan Israel writes in his majestically trilogy on the Enlightenment, "Jacobin ideology and culture under Robespierre was an obsessive Rousseauiste moral Puritanism steeped in authoritarianism, anti-intellectualism, and xenophobia, and it repudiated free expression, basic human rights, and democracy." I strongly suggest you pick up Israel's work to gain a nuanced understanding of the Enlightenment.

Superficiality is a theme with runs throughout your post. Stalin and Mao's top-down, party-controlled, militarized command economies are "egalitarian"? All domains of human life are hierarchical? Not all religions, or sects within religions, modern or otherwise, are structured similarly, differing in how they view equality and structure themselves. Same with families, labor (e.g. worker cooperatives), and Government, of course. How precisely is hierarchy "intrinsic" to humanity, and how has that manifested in our institutions despite the varying degrees of their comparative egalitarianism? What socio-political system would you endorse while taking into account that nearly every modern system accepts universal egalitarianism to a degree (e.g. libertarianism grants that every person has property rights).

Quoting Dachshund

The principle of hierarchy, as opposed to equality , has existed as long as civilisation itself. Every major domain of human life activity: the family, religion, education, labour, politics and government, interpersonal relationships has traditionally been structured hierarchically. Almost all successful societies, have, for example, been characterised by patriarchy and parental authority.

I believe it is fair to say that hierarchy ( the existence of which presupposes authority) is, in fact intrinsic to human existence ( i.e. humanbeing, as such). The human mode of being is conspicuously shot through entirely with hierarchy...

I don't necessarily disagree with these statements. I don't know enough to decide. Do you? What are your qualifications for making these broad statements? What do you know that I don't? You don't just get to throw things like this out without justification if you want to be taken seriously.

Quoting Dachshund

In my view it is important here to appreciate that the true opposite of equality is not inequality, but quality.. Culture, for instance is ordered intellectual life; it is a maturing and self-perfecting form which calls for an ever higher grade of personality. Human society, as I say, exists on the basis of quality rather than equality of men... strong natures and weak natures, temperaments and personalities born to lead or not to lead, the creative and the talentless, the honourable and the ignoble, the forthright and the passive, the conscientious and industrious and the lazy and idle, the ambitious and the amotivated.

So, them what's downtrodden deserve what they get. Them what's got deserve what they got. Very convenient. Justifies slavery, genocide, colonialism, empires, wars, castes, racism..... Tell me - who in the US doesn't deserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Where is the quality cut-off? Do you deserve those rights? Who on this forum doesn't? Who that you work with? Who in your family?

Quoting Dachshund

But the lesson was not learned... In the 20th century, Marxist egalitarian ideology gave rise to a series of monstrous totalitarian regimes, for example: dialectical materialism in the former Soviet Union under Stalin, Mao Zedong's equalitarian "Cultural Revolution" in Red China, Pol Pot's primitive attempt to establish a radical, agrarian communist utopia in Cambodia in the 1970, etc; that saw literally 100s of millions of human beings ruthlessly slaughtered by their own governments.

Whatever their ideology, it would be absurd to say that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot believed that all people deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, much less that government has an obligation to promote those goals.

Quoting Dachshund

These are some of reasons I am so opposed to socialist/communist political ideologies founded on what I would argue is the demonstrably false egalitarian delusion that "all men are created equal". They are not, and if one tries toforce them to be - disaster, devastation, misery and suffering are always the inevitable consequences.

So, the snuffing out of millions of Ukrainian farmers by Stalin is equivalent to universal heath care in Denmark? If the lower quality people you discuss don't deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, what do they deserve? Education? Enough to eat? Medical care? Decent lives? Nothing?

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.

Reply to Dachshund Even though Jefferson was a Deist (and not a Theist) the concept of a god-created world would have been part of his world-view. "All men are created equal" by their Creator.

All men (humans) are equal before God as products of God's creative power. There is nothing in the concept of egalitarian creation that conflicts with men (humans) occupying all sorts of different stations in life, from King of England on down to the lowliest field slave.

Did Jefferson ever claim that everyone was going to equal in the future? I don't think so. Can a slave and a slave owner be equal before God? Yes. Did Jefferson have doubts about the morality of slavery? Yes: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."

You are getting hung up by insisting on rhetorical consistency. People, you may have noticed, are consistently inconsistent. If they aren't inconsistent right now, they will be inconsistent later today. Tomorrow at the latest. Everyone is inconsistent except me and thee, and even thee was inconsistent just the other day.

Quoting Dachshund

No, I am just an average Joe - nothing special, no special talents or skills really.

All that seems to be true.

Quoting Bitter Crank

All that seems to be true.

Geez, BC, you were doing so well. Then you had to go and be mean.

Reply to T Clark I just agreed with him, that's all. Neighborly, you know.

Reply to Bitter Crank [quote="Bitter Crank;153874"

]All men (humans) are equal before God as products of God's creative power. There is nothing in the concept of egalitarian creation that conflicts with men (humans) occupying all sorts of different stations in life, from King of England on down to the lowliest field slave.[/quote]


Dear Mr Crank,

Let me get this straight...Am I correct in thinking you are saying, in essence, that all human beings have equal MORAL status? Am I right in thinking that when you declare "All men (humans) are equal before God as products of God's creative power", you are claiming that all human beings thereby possess the same fundamental rights; and the comparable interests of each person should count the same in any calculations that determine social policy, for example? And this means, among other things, that no differences that existbetween human beings, be it in skin colour, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, cognitive capacity, should negate their fundamental EQUAL (identical) worth, value and dignity?

Regards

Dachshund

Reply to Dachshund I gather from your phrase, "Let me get this straight" that you didn't like my interpretation of what Jefferson may or may not have meant.

I might think

Quoting Dachshund

that no difference that exists between human beings, be it in skin colour, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, cognitive capacity, should negate their fundamental EQUAL (identical) worth, value and dignity

but whether Jefferson believed that is open to question. When rhetoric like "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." is deployed, the authors are not accounting for the major inconsistencies in their own affairs. Holding that "all men are created equal" and owning slaves (and fathering slave children) is a serrated-edged inconsistency.

Jefferson may have aspired to harmonize his rhetoric with the facts of his life. He may have intended at one point to free his slaves, but in the end, he didn't -- he needed their cash value.

Still, the rhetoric is there in the D. of I. It's good rhetoric, and if we make it consistent in our own lives, good on us. Unfortunately, when we talk about the EQUAL worth, value, and dignity of human beings, we are as likely as Jefferson to be inconsistent, but maybe not as egregiously.

I don't know... these days do a lot of people sincerely claim we are all created equal? And if we say that all people are created equal, do we mean that in a specially, restricted way? Like, "We are all created equal, but some of us are better and more equal than others." I suspect that most people feel they are superior to at least some others, even if they grudgingly admit that some people are better than themselves.

And if we are all equal before god, then that is god's problem to deal with, not ours, thank heavens. We'll just go ahead and operate on the assumption that some of us are better, and some of you are worse.

Reply to Bitter Crank Quoting Bitter Crank

Did Jefferson have doubts about the morality of slavery? Yes: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."

Dear Mr Crank,

No enough doubts, apparently, for him to remain a slave owner for many years after 1776; and according a number of historical accounts, one who was never a particularly kind master. He also sold quite a number of his own slaves, I read, for the express purpose of funding purchases of many luxury items ( expensives wines and other fine goods, etc) for himself at Monticello. Interesting as well., that when TJ was President in 1802, and purchased Louisiana from Napoleon, who sold the land very cheaply, Jefferson, although he had the power to stop it, allowed the slave trade to continue and flourish in the new American-owned territory. Had he acted to outlaw slavery in the state of Louisiana ( which occupied a large chunk the South at the time ) after he bought the land from the French, many believe the American Civil War could have been prevented. So basically, Thomas Jefferson was, it seems to me, just an A-Grade hypocrite and liar; a man who made a lot of filthy lucre for himself and his cronies through protecting the slave trade in the US over many years. That's something, IMO, they should be teaching kids in US elementary school history lessons about the author of their great "American Creed".


Regards


Dachshund

Reply to Bitter Crank Quoting Bitter Crank

I gather from your phrase, "Let me get this straight" that you didn't like my interpretation of what Jefferson may or may not have meant.

Dear Mr Crank,

No, I was just going to to explain to you that if it were you personally who was affirming the claim that "All men are created equal" and the particular dimension/principle of equality to which you were alluding was MORAL equality ( I assumed this might be the case from your use of the phrase "equal before God" ) then your position is totally untenable; and I would be happy to tell you why this is the case.

However, I take it there is now no real necessity for me to proceed, given the equivocal nature of the content in your recent response re the issue? ( i.e. that you MIGHT - not DO -, etc. think all men are created morally equal in terms of properties like virtue/worth/dignity).

I will therefore leave you in peace to ponder the question further for yourself if it is of particular interest/importance to you.

Regards

Dachshund

Reply to Dachshund
For argument's sake...

I do hold the position that all people are of equal moral worth (a la Kant). I would love to hear why you believe the contrary.

Quoting Dachshund

I was just going to to explain to you that if it were you personally who was affirming the claim that "All men are created equal" and the particular dimension/principle of equality to which you were alluding was MORAL equality ( I assumed this might be the case from your use of the phrase "equal before God" ) then your position is totally untenable; and I would be happy to tell you why this is the case.

Well, go ahead and explain why it is untenable. You never know -- I might backslide into a less equivocal POV without your explanation. I admit it: I'm not entirely certain about what I think about equality. (How can anybody not be certain about what they think?)

Quoting Dachshund

So basically, Thomas Jefferson was, it seems to me, just an A-Grade hypocrite and liar; a man who made a lot of filthy lucre for himself and his cronies through protecting the slave trade in the US over many years.

As several people have noted, the fact that Thomas Jefferson might have been a hypocrite has no bearing on whether or not the Declaration of Independence is a lie.

Reply to Phil Quoting Phil

I do hold the position that all people are of equal moral worth (a la Kant). I would love to hear why you believe the contrary.

Dear Phil,

Just to recap. We are debating the veracity of Thomas Jefferson's claim that it is a "self-evident truth...all men are created equal".

Firstly, equality is a multidimensional concept, and I should like to make it clear that I believe Jefferson is referring to moral equality in his preamble to the Declaration of Independence.This is because his claim that "all men are created equal is only intelligible as a prescription, namely, a moral prescription that holds there is some respect, at least, in which no difference ought to be made in the treatment or consideration of all men, whatever differences there might be in their qualities or circumstances..

I(A) I have to tell you that I am unable to identify any such respect/s. If you are able to identify any such particular respect/s that serve to verify Jefferson's claim, could you please please tell me what, precisely, they are ?

(B) You are, like Jefferson, asserting , (I take it) ,that the claim of absolute moral equality in the statement "all men are created equal" cannot be rebutted by pointing to any obvious (self-evident) hierarchical variation/s in quality or quantity that exist in any natural human characteristics such, for instance, as, say : height; race/ethnicity; sexual orientation; "Big Five" (OCEAN) personality traits, talent in some particular field /s ( e.g. musical talent) or skill/s (e.g. mathematical or literary skill), that might potentially justify the provision of any kind of differential treatment or consideration of any man with respect to the essential intrinsic worth/ value/ dignity he or she possesses just in the fact of his/her existing as a human being (i.e. just by being a living member of the species homo sapiens).

I disagree.

You mention Kant, so I'll use his ethical theory as an example, to explain why I think your position is indefensible.

Kantian morality holds that all rational agents must always be treated not merely as means, but as ends in themselves. According to Kant, possession of the capacity for rational agency confers an equal fundamental status on all persons as opposed to all other creatures who lack rational agency. Right ? But there is a problem here, let me explain. The problem derives from the fact that rational agency is a result of rational cognitive processes.

The higher cognitive processes that are associated with human reasoning in mental events like "ratiocination", i.e.reasoned logical, rational deliberation are classified in neuropsychology under the broad rubric of what is called "executive functioning" and the executive functions are anatomically localized in a part of the human brain called the prefrontal cortex.

To cut to the chase, "executive functioning" is a technical term that pretty much refers to the operation of general (fluid) intelligence. (And) the amount of general intelligence that an individual possesses can be measured ( quantified) by psychological tests like standardised IQ tests that have the capacity to reliably and accurately calculate the magnitude of a person's so-called "g-factor" (general intelligence factor). "G-factor", BTW, is a real construct that exists as phenomenon in the natural world. That is, It[i ]does[/i] exist as a real, (actual) entity in the human mind/ mental domain, and , as I say, it can be accurately and reliably measured. We know these things about the g-factor for sure; they are concrete, cold, incontrovertible scientific" facts- in -the- bag". We also know , for a fact ,that general intelligence ( the g-factor) in human beings varies (in a graduated ,hierarchical) manner from very low to low to average/normal to high to very high according to what is called in statistics a Gaussian or "Bell Curve" type distribution.

Now that we know this, lets return to unpack the problem I identified with Kant.'s moral theory in more detail. The problem, in short, is this: if the human capacity for rational agency is a capacity that varies continuously in magnitude - and as I have just confirmed above IT CERTAINLY IS and IT CERTAINLY DOES, how exactly is it, I wonder, that one will ever be able to pick out some threshold level of the capacity such that variations in rational agency capability above the threshold do not generate corresponding differences ( i.e. INEQUALITIES ) in fundamental moral status?

Do you have any suggestions, Phil ? If so, I'm all ears !

Anyway, I'll leave it at that for now. Tomorrow I'll continue my rebuttal of Jefferson's moral egalitarianism in the claim he makes that "all men are created equal "by extending the scope of my argument to incorporate an overview of the Kantian "categorical imperative" and how I believe its basic tenets can be used to provide further robust support for my case.


Regards


Dachshund

Dear Phil (and Mr Crank, Mr ClarK),

Here is rest of my rebuttal of Jefferson's claim that "all men are created equal".

(A) The notion of moral equality interpreted as equal treatment for equal interests

Because "all men are created equal" they are equally endowed, with certain inalienable rights, such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness , and now those additional human rights that are set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

The claim that all human beings have an equal basic moral status also means that any interest of one man/woman that is comparable in magnitude and quality to the interest of any other man/woman should count the same in determining what actions and policies we should adopt. (I must clarify what I mean by the term "interest" as it is used in this context. I mean that one has an interest in something if attaining the something would be conducive to one's good or welfare). I think it is fair to say that an individual who is a creative genius has richer and more complex interests than those of an ordinary average Joe. If I interpret the principle of moral equally as equal treatment for equal interests, then human beings with fancier interests should get fancier treatment. If one is sympathetic (which I am) to a theory of value according to which the very highest intellectual accomplishments greatly outweigh any lesser satisfactions in contributing to the goodness of someone's life, then the interests of some person will have relatively little weight, compared to the interests of other persons, in determining what should be done.

In sum, human cognitive ability varies ( according to the "Bell Curve" principle), I discussed in my previous post) and I believe that the higher the level of cognitive ability (g- factor, general intelligence intelligence, capacity for rational thinking, ability to reason) an individual possesses the greater/more enhanced is the the moral status of this individual, and consequently the satisfaction of his/her interests counts for more than the satisfaction of the interests of individuals with lessor cognitive ability that are the same in quality and quantity.

Having said this I now need to demonstrate the veracity of the ( cognitive ability/intelligence ) theory of value I am using. I will do this in a separate post.

Regards

Dachshund

Quoting Dachshund

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..."

"MEN" (not women) are not even created!

But I think this is not meant as astatement of fact, but of an assertion of political right. The "forefathers" were reacting against the privilege of rank and title that men (and they meant men) in Britain enjoyed by birth. The aristocrats were seen as holding political power due to birth and not through any more valuable character.

So I think you are viewing this problem by misunderstanding the assertion. Men are equal under the law. Those that drafted the constitution were not stupid.

Quoting Dachshund

Thomas Jefferson was, it seems to me, just an A-Grade hypocrite and liar; a man who made a lot of filthy lucre for himself and his cronies through protecting the slave trade in the US over many years

It's hard to defend someone who owned 200 slaves, as he himself admitted that slavery corrupted all men. Jefferson did inherit 52 slaves by his father's will and another 135 slaves from his father-in-law's will. He did however face constant debt problems and in his death 130 slaves were sold to pay those debts. In some sense the banks were the ones who owned the slaves; this made it very difficult for him to free the slaves on his own volition.

Despite this, he did free some of his slaves, some of which only after they had been trained and were qualified to hold employment. Jefferson seemed to believe that the outright freeing of slaves would be dangerous for everyone, and that training and gradual integration was the correct course of action. Jefferson proposed a national plan to end slavery by the federal government via purchasing African-American slave children for $12.50, raising and training them in occupations of freemen

The hypocrisy of Jefferson signing the declaration of independence, while still owning slaves, was not lost on people even then though. "If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves." It was a time of transition, with cumbersome legacy baggage to account for, but a solid foundation for the future was still being laid at least.

In the end, Jefferson led the effort to criminalize the international slave trade, which ultimately can be considered a good thing. He was one of the good guys in my opinion, despite his blemishes.

As per the topic of equality, he did seem to believe that Africans had a lower intelligence, so I don't think he really thought that people were born equal, in a physical sense anyways. Based on my interpretation, he believed all men should be equal under the law and equally free of slavery at birth, and as such should be afforded equal rights, specific to the right of self-defense, property ownership, and the pursuit of happiness.

Regardless, the notion that people are born with equal ability, equal opportunity, equal Independence, or equal value seems to me to be pretty ludicrous. I suppose the growth of the government into aspects of society outside of simply ensuring the basic rights previously detailed has carried with it the belief that equality should be found elsewhere as well; and enforced. There is no shortage of novels written about such dystopic worlds where these attitudes run into the extreme.

That's not to say the declaration of independence was perfect though. Women's rights were not equal those of males, and the more modern argument is that they should be. There is an argument that perhaps they shouldn't be though, as under the law a man going topless and a women going topless have different perceptions. We also have male circumcision and female circumcision differences. Clearly, men and women are born different, and even under the law, they have different rights and freedoms. It becomes a slippery slope to play that game though.

In reviewing the initial post and the comments following it, it looks like most people have raised good points here. The statement first off was poorly written, because when we say one thing is equal to another, we typically indicate in what way the two objects are equal. Equally tall, equal mass. Equally salty. Yet, Jefferson never stated how all men are equal. Presumably he meant political equality, but that was hard to swallow when blacks were enslaved, and only wealthy white men could vote, and even the rich white men could not vote directly for president, but only for the electoral college, who would then go on and elect the president. Bloody rubbish for sure, but, I like those words, because they have been used by every minority group in the USA as the basis to be treated equally.

Quoting Sydasis

this made it very difficult for him to free the slaves on his own volition.

Boo Hoo.

Reply to Sydasis

Quoting Sydasis

As per the topic of equality, he did seem to believe that Africans had a lower intelligence, so I don't think he really thought that people were born equal, in a physical sense anyways. Based on my interpretation, he believed all men should be equal under the law and equally free of slavery at birth, and as such should be afforded equal rights, specific to the right of self-defense, property ownership, and the pursuit of happiness.

Hi Sydasis,

It is not so much Thomas Jefferson, I am criticising, but the egalitarian notion that we all hold it to be an" inalienable", and"self -evident" fact that"all men are created equal". IMO, Jefferson probably included this idea in his preamble to the American Declaration of Independence (1776) after befriending and reading the work of Tom Paine, a rabble-rousing, political firebrand and full-blooded English egalitarian socialist, who arrived in the colonies around the mid (I think)- 1770s an went on to play a major, if not critical role, in the helping the Americans to win the Revolutionary war against the British Crown (1775- 83).

I made the point, in a post above, that the phrase "all men are created equal" is an endorsement,( in my view), of the ethical doctrine of moral egalitarianism; that is, it is an affirmation of the ""irrefragable", "unquestionable" fact (?) of the MORAL EQUALITY of all human beings.

But - (pardon me if I am putting it too bluntly) - I smell a rat...


When we proclaim the MORAL EQUALITY of all human beings, what we are actually stating, I say, is a belief that ANY INTEREST of any one man or woman that is comparable in MAGNITUDE and QUALITY to the interest of any other man or woman SHOULD COUNT THE SAME in determining what actions and policies we adopt. BTW, it is very important for me to clarify I what I mean by the term "INTEREST", and what I mean, precisely, is this; one has an INTEREST in something, if attaining the something would be conducive to one's GOOD or WELFARE.

The big problem I have with the claim that "all men are created equal" is that it only makes sense - it is only INTELLIGIBLE - if, as I say, we take to be a MORAL PRESCRIPTION that holds there is at least SOME RESPECT in which no difference OUGHT to be made to the treatment or consideration of ALL MEN and WOMEN (all human beings) REGARDLESS of whatever obvious differences there might be in their qualities or circumstances.

As I said above,[b ]if there is some such respect[/b] which actually exists and which means we MUST therefore treat the interest of any one man or woman (when it is of comparable MAGNITUDE or QUALITY) to the interest of any other man or woman and regardless of whatever self-evident differences their might be in their qualities ( age, skin colour, height, race/ethnicity, intelligence, gender, occupation, personality traits, etc) or circumstances (e.g. being the current Queen of England or President of the United States or being , say, indigent and homeless with no fixed address), then what is it ??

WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IT ( the mysterious RESPECT I refer to above) IS, BECAUSE I HAVE THOUGHT LONG AND HARD ABOUT IT AND I CANNOT SEEM TO FIND ONE - ANYWHERE, EITHER IN MY OWN EXPERIENCE ,OR, IN ANY BOOK OF WISDOM OR SYSTEM OF PHILOSOPHY I HAVE READ OR BEEN TAUGHT !! It is all the more frustrating because of the pressing urgency of this entire matter - there is, I mean, naturally a tremendous amount at stake for humanity in finding -if it exists - a real, concrete, no-nonsense answer this question.

That is why I published the original OP, not so much to indict Jefferson (whom most people know was an arrogant, wealthy capitalist and certainly "no Angel" in terms of his general behaviour), but to challenge EVERYTHING the "Great American Creed" ( "We hold these truths to be self-evident... etc") stands for. Is it all, I am wondering, all just a piece of high falutin', self-righteous, woolley, abstract nonsense ?

What do you think ?

Regards

Dachshund

Quoting Dachshund

As I said above,if there is some such respect which actually exists and which means we MUST therefore treat the interest of any one man or woman

I suppose that's up to you. If you want to deny rights to others then you have no leg to stand on when others deny rights to you. This would also entail you binding over for the Queen, and I understand that Donald also likes to give it out too.

Quoting Dachshund

Dear Mr Crank

Reply to Bitter Crank :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Reply to charleton Quoting charleton

I suppose that's up to you. If you want to deny rights to others then you have no leg to stand on when others deny rights to you.

People denying each other's so-called fundamental human sright ? Ha, you must be joking. It happens all the time, 24/7/365 day a year, everywhere on planet Earth there are people, buddy ! - It's an innate attribute of human BEING ( i.e. our human"being" in itself, in its ontological context) It's an intrinsic part of what we call the "human condition". (and the human condition is notorious for not always being a pleasant stroll through a rose garden young man ! (Quite the F**KING opposite , in fact).

To put it bluntly, Charleton, S**T HAPPENS in this life, and the sad fact is that not uncommonly, S**T that happens to precious, little YOU ,is a direct consequence of other human beings nearby NOT respecting the romantic utopist, "cloud cuckoo land" notion of universal, moral equality.

Reply to Agustino

:grin: - Couldn't resist the temptation !! ( wicked, I know).

Quoting Dachshund

It happens all the time

Indeed, when we have dinosaurs like you. Shit does happen and that is exactly why Trumpers like yourself need to be fought against

Quoting charleton

Boo Hoo.

I don't quite follow.

Pardon the pedantic nature of this reply, but I'm struggling to offer answers to your questions.

Quoting Dachshund

It is not so much Thomas Jefferson, I am criticising, but the egalitarian notion that we all hold it to be an" inalienable", and"self -evident" fact that"all men are created equal"

Not an argument really, but I'm Canadian and as such I learned about American history on my own accord. In Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedom, which does not use those terms you mention, yet the end result for us has been equal or even more extreme. I suppose then it's not the wording or phrasing that matters so much as the general sentiment.

As per the Canadian charter, "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination... [affirmative action programs however can trump these rights]".

Relevant is the Canadian Federal Budget released yesterday, $1.4-billion has been allocated towards female entrepreneurs, along with the introduction of a federal mandate of equal pay for females; whatever that may entail needs to be seen.

Quoting Dachshund

the work of Tom Paine, a rabble-rousing, political firebrand and full-blooded English egalitarian socialist

Reading over Paine's history in more detail, I find it interesting how he sees "created equal" as not an anti-slavery argument, but as an anti-monarchy one. I believe there might of been reference to Jesus in his argument, so take that for what it is worth.

Furthermore, for Paine, the terms "inalienable" and "self-evident" seemed to imply that human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter. If granted by means of political charter, that would imply those rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges. This also would seemingly imply that these rights are not to be questioned and are not up for debate. I have read though that in later years Jefferson himself spoke of these rights as not just political, but morally as well, but times do change people.

Based on the works of Locke, which also seem to carry significance to this discussion, he asserted that human natural rights would mean nothing without a moral human code to define them. I can't particularly fault him for such belief, although I am generally of the mindset that natural morals are primarily allowances in behavior that ensures reproduction and survival.

The deviation of any moral code and moral equity by the founding fathers would seem however to come directly from the Christian bible's declaration of such truths. If there be a separation of state and church, it seems a bit of a fallacy to base the premise of any rights on the incontestable assertions of any one's religion's morals. I suspect that to "respect" a person is to not infringe on those rights claimed to be natural. Either way, the words picked do imply that regardless of derivation, the stated rights are not to be questioned. This is fairly normal of most charters though, no?

I'm struggling to tackle your other deeper arguments however, as I find myself needing to make a lot of debatable conclusions as to what the basis of "all men are created equal" means. Juggling these assumptions is overwhelming me.

Reply to Sydasis If he had given a fuck about slaves he could have lived without them. He could have freed them, paid them.

Inalienable rights do come from Locke, who simply based his claim on magic --- or, excuse me, a belief in God. Inalienable rights are typically misunderstood. They literally mean you are stuck with them. So, Locke would have been against someone being relieved from their misery facing a terminal illness by assisted suicide, because he felt the right to life was inalienable, meaning, something a person could not reject.

Reply to charleton
Well, by today's viewpoint Jefferson would most definitely be a tyrant; I can't deny that he did some disturbing things. I suspect he had the capabilities to free his own slaves too, even if it meant sneaking them out to Canada, although it would of been to his detriment.

A mix of reasons I've found online, although most are just outright bad.

https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/property

• the economic value of his human property (at certain times, his slaves were mortgaged and thus could not be freed or sold);
• his lifelong view that emancipation had to go hand-in-hand with expatriation of the freed slaves;
• his paternalistic belief that slaves were incapable of supporting themselves in freedom and his fear they would become burden to society;
• his belief in gradual measures operating through the legal processes of government;
• and, after 1806, a state law that required freed slaves to leave Virginia within a year. Jefferson wrote that this law did not "permit" Virginians to free their slaves; he apparently thought that, for an enslaved African American, slavery was preferable to freedom far from one's home and family.

Today, we live in a society were a lifetime of good deeds mean nothing if the #metoo movement accuses you of past sexual misconduct. We also have wealthy elites proclaiming wealth redistribution, although they themselves are not willing to contribute from their wealth alone. It's not even limited to the elites, as there are hundreds of countries worse off than America, and yet wallets largely stay closed. I've adopted my cat, although I do feel guilty that I have room to adopt a few more, and yet I don't.

So my argument is that Jefferson did "give a fuck", although how far he was willing to self-sacrifice can easily be held to scrutiny. Given the context of the time, he was a progressive!

Throughout his entire life, Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation. Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.

https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

Regarding payment to slaves, he was heading in the direction of modern McDonalds I suppose,

Jefferson attempted to motivate slaves to perform tasks with incentives such as “gratuities” (tips) or other rewards. He experimented with “new modes of governance” of enslaved people, which was intended to moderate physical punishment and to capitalize on the human desire to emulate and excel.

https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

I also found this a bit interesting, although a bit off topic:

Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of abolition was intertwined with his racial beliefs. He thought that white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted two “separate nations” who could not live together peacefully in the same country.

https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

Based on his view of the Haitian Revolution and an aborted rebellion in Virginia in 1800, he believed freeing of the slaves outright would result in a race-war, but he also believed that to keep slaves in bondage, with part of America in favor of abolition and part of America in favor of perpetuating slavery, could only result in a civil war that would destroy the union.

This fear was at least partially not unfounded, as the civil war proved, and we see race battles persist in America today and in countries like South Africa.