The Declaration of Independence (U.S.A.) - Philosophical

[voidsoul]

[...] the [...] equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them, [...]

Anwar brought up the division between Naturalists and Believers in God, with respect to this quote.
Now do the laws of nature really entitle us to an equal station with others? Especially, an equal political station?
I don't know much about the Naturalist point of view though.

In any case, I don't think there are any laws or innate concepts that entitle everyone to an equal standing. You fight for your standing, that's all. Now, there are definitely no laws or concepts that rule that someone's standing should be subservient to another's.

When I view this "quote" as part of a political move, it makes sense. People would go crazy if another side objects to the "equal station" concept. In the end however, the concept isn't worth much to me - The only thing that matters is having enough people on your side that can live independently of those above you: nature's laws are "fight for your standing".

[Samerron]

I don't know much about the Naturalist point of view though.

Naturalist? I am not sure how much they were or had effect at that time, all I know is that the American slogan is "In God We Trust", which by itself is good enough for me

fight for your standing

Can't agree with you anymore!

[iAnwar Horizon]

do the laws of nature really entitle us to an equal station with others? Especially, an equal political station?

starting with this question I came to think
:


1.What laws of nature and god's nature have entitled us is an equal station of "freedom" and "justice".

3. A better society is a society were freedom and justice are best applied, according to laws of nature and god's nature

2.We form political communities and groups to better utilize resources, develop our people and to be a better community
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
then

3. The political group that utilizes the power to have a equal station of freedom and justice is the one better to rule

for example
If am in a political group and want to "advance my standing" and "not fight for it", I will need more people to be on my side that work for a better equally distributed freedom and justice than the other group does to have a better political position.

Share your opinion!
what are the flaws?

[Samerron]

To start with, I wrote a long reply, but the stupid internet got disconnected and I lost it! Just want to warn you to write your reply in Word before pasting it in the forum, cause also the forum might get crazy sometimes!
Anyway, here’s my reply again…

1.What laws of nature and god's nature have entitled us is an equal station of "freedom" and "justice".

These are the laws that one come to believe and agree that they are given to humans simply for the fact that we are humans, regardless of our race, ethnicity and heritage. Now, one might say that people are different and must be treated different...true, but there should be a fundamental ground in which all humans have equal common attributes i.e. rights!

Speak of human rights, in 1948 the United Nation proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (funny its the same year Israel declared independence).

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories.

For the full listing of the human rights, which is made up of 30 articles, read it here: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.

A better society is a society were freedom and justice are best applied, according to laws of nature and god's nature.

Before continuing with the analysis, what do you imply when you say a better society?
Do you mean a society that advances and progress in terms of its production and economics, or a better quality of life for its society, or a society that better implements justice and more peaceful?

[iAnwar Horizon]

Before continuing with the analysis, what do you imply when you say a better society?
Do you mean a society that advances and progress in terms of its production and economics, or a better quality of life for its society, or a society that better implements justice and more peaceful?

When I mentioned a better society I mean the cycle that society goes in and consists of 2 of your speculations as follows
Better production and economics ---> Better life quality--->better production and economics ..etc

So when freedom and justice are best applied it keeps fueling the cycle

[voidsoul]

iAnwar Horizon wrote: (by the way, I don't know how to make it quote a person?)

What laws of nature and god's nature have entitled us is an equal station of "freedom" and "justice".

I tend to disagree.
First, allow me to disregard discussion of "God's nature", and whether that entitles us humans to anything. It is a subject that is out of reach and out of the scope of what I'm trying to say.
So, the question at hand for me is: Are humans by nature entitled to an equal station of "freedom" and "justice"? (without being too specific about those terms)

I would say no, not by nature. All we are entitled to by nature is to do whatever is within our power that we want to do. It is a certain kind of freedom, but not the one that is generally accepted, where "no human interferes with another's freedom". It is the freedom to attempt to do whatever one wants to do. This is ours by nature, and no one can take it from us.

Nevertheless, nowadays we do have the generally accepted man-made principle: "everyone is equal". It is merely one of many slogans to empower the weak individuals to join together into a stronger mass.
In the end, if there was one individual that was more powerful than everyone put together on Earth, there is no argument from nature against him/her taking over. All you can say to him/her is: "you are mean".

It's a power struggle that is most often won by having more people on your side. Hence, coming together into societies, rights, justice, the truth, change, pride, religion, honor, etc... And myriad other cool slogans, to fool as many people as possible to be on your side (more commonly known as "Politics").

[voidsoul]

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

These are three unalienable rights highlighted in the Declaration. Is there anything you would suggest adding or changing in this list?

(I wanted to pop this question before I forgot to. I do not have an answer yet - I will edit this quote later on in the day with mine. The question will remain unchanged.)

[Samerron]

Void, I kind of see where you are going, but correct me if I’m getting you wrong.

What do we, as humans (or humanity) get from nature. Are we sure that freedom and equality is something given by Nature by default? Or, is it more of a man-made?

The only thing given by nature is the ability to gain power, and limited only to one’s internal power, or a greater external power. The one with the greatest power, has the full capability to control the rest, as you have presented in your example.

It is the freedom to attempt to do whatever one wants to do.

Interesting…can you explain more…

Once this point is over, I will present my theory which might be partially complementary to yours Void.

[Moath_H]

1.What laws of nature and god's nature have entitled us is an equal station of "freedom" and "justice".

I think the idea is more of an hierarchy than actual laws: if all of us are stationed under one Supreme Being by nature (i.e. by default), then that would make us equal with respect to our relations with said Supreme Being. Nature, however, is different and involves more of a differing strata of relationships between individuals based on the social roles that we have defined. In the case of pure nature, it has to do with things like the "food chain" and "natural selection". In that respect, our survivalist tendencies and capabilities put as at disparities with one another. However, as human beings, we differ from the rest of nature in that we are fully aware of the evolutionary and natural processes that govern the basics of our lives, and being able to control those tendencies and impulses leads to our civilization, where we can eventually live as equals provided we have the methods to control those disparities.

2. A better society is a society were freedom and justice are best applied, according to laws of nature and god's nature

But what does that mean? Does freedom mean being able to go about your business without government regulation? Or does it mean going poor and bankrupt but knowing that your society won't let you rot in the streets? Does justice mean the severity of punishment of a crime? Or does it mean its certainty?

2.We form political communities and groups to better utilize resources, develop our people and to be a better community

Agreeable, but keep in mind that not all political communities are like that.

3. The political group that utilizes the power to have a equal station of freedom and justice is the one better to rule

Again, that's a statement very open to interpretation given the ambivalence over what freedom and justice truly mean. I don't think that - for example - modern Canadian society can be more prosperous than the Golden Age Islamic Caliphates since both societies took justice and freedom to different meanings (i.e. within the confines of their own systems) and applied them to the benefit of most if not all of society.

[voidsoul]

In response to Samerron's last post,
You pretty much have what I'm saying summed up. I want to take the concept a little further though.

In the Declaration of Independence, the authors ascertain that Nature's Laws entitle humans to an equal station (of whatever: freedom, justice - we can throw in many more vague words). I was originally questioning that statement.
---

First, let me distinguish between several understandings of the word Nature, so we can discuss the Rights we have under each understanding.

Moath_H mentioned "pure nature" - the Nature we think of when we talk about the wild. In this understanding of nature, I believe there is no such thing as "rights". For example, if a lion kills a human, it does not violate the human's "right to life" - there is no such right in this context. Certainly then, there is no "equal station" entitled to anyone.

Another understanding of the word Nature is closer to the term "human nature", but is not quite the same. With "human nature" we try to describe innate tendencies that cause humans to behave in a certain way. On the other hand, this other understanding, which may or may not exist, of the word Nature is a human's nature as a rational creature. It seeks to describe the rights that a human as a rational creature has, and his/her relationship with other rational creatures. We can call it the Nature of Rational Creatures, under which we might find that we are entitled to an equal station with each other.
---

The question I am trying to answer is: Are humans entitled to an equal station with each other by Nature? Or is this a concept that is made by humans for the sake of convenience?

In "pure" Nature, I believe we are not entitled to an equal station.

I believe it is the same with the Nature of Rational Creatures. Being a rational creature does not mean it is wrong to enslave (deny equal station to) another rational creature. Rationality, lets call it the ability to comprehend and to think, has nothing to do with enslaving others. If Rationality could conclude that it is logically correct to have an equal station, then humans would by nature be bound to this conclusion. I do not believe this is the case though.

The only question remaining is whether we have any other natural characteristics (other than pure nature, or rationality) that would entail an equal station.
Perhaps being a "civilized" creature would prohibit such things as slavery, but is it in our Nature to be Civilized?
---

[Moath_H]

Moath_H mentioned "pure nature" - the Nature we think of when we talk about the wild. In this understanding of nature, I believe there is no such thing as "rights". For example, if a lion kills a human, it does not violate the human's "right to life" - there is no such right in this context. Certainly then, there is no "equal station" entitled to anyone.

The question I am trying to answer is: Are humans entitled to an equal station with each other by Nature? Or is this a concept that is made by humans for the sake of convenience?

In "pure" Nature, I believe we are not entitled to an equal station.

I agree, hence why I distinguished nature from civilization. My main argument was that our awareness of our situation and rationality helps us gear towards actions and practices that would naturally be beneficial to the survival, maintenance, and growth of our species. This is where the issue of rights comes in: a man-made altruism used to benefit the survival of our species. Some animals in nature exhibit this altruistic behavior, but only go as far as to assigning social roles to maintain functionality.

I believe it is the same with the Nature of Rational Creatures. Being a rational creature does not mean it is wrong to enslave (deny equal station to) another rational creature. Rationality, lets call it the ability to comprehend and to think, has nothing to do with enslaving others. If Rationality could conclude that it is logically correct to have an equal station, then humans would by nature be bound to this conclusion. I do not believe this is the case though.

Again, I agree, but even though we do have the capacity to be rational, more often do we succumb to the irrational or what we believe is rational: the survival of our "race". Not all humans are aware that we are all of the same species. If animals by "nature" tend to form collectives, so do humans in the form of races, religions, nations, etc, all shaped around different manifestations of rationality in specific contexts.

The only question remaining is whether we have any other natural characteristics (other than pure nature, or rationality) that would entail an equal station. I can only think of those 2 at the moment.

Me, too, given the above, but our discoveries in the past (from the invention of fire and the wheel) have also made us into the sophisticated species that we are today.

Perhaps being a "civilized" creature would prohibit such things as slavery, but is it in our Nature to be Civilized?

Civilization is a very shaky concept since it can have many meanings. If by civilized you mean form collectives and communities to work towards better survival, then I might agree in that instance. As for it being in our nature, again, that depends on the social foundations already in place. By nature, we tend to form societies and therefore we might be by nature "civilized".

But if by civilization you mean acts, beliefs, and customs that are considered "civilized", then we're only fooling ourselves. Colonialists tend to pride themselves in their "civilization", but their actions (subjugating entire peoples based on the color of their skin) may not be deemed "civilized" on the same standards they supposedly uphold. So to answer your question, we do by nature tend to form civilizations, but we don't - by nature - tend to think in "civilized" terms.

[Samerron]

In "pure" Nature, I believe we are not entitled to an equal station.

I believe it is the same with the Nature of Rational Creatures. Being a rational creature does not mean it is wrong to enslave (deny equal station to) another rational creature. Rationality, lets call it the ability to comprehend and to think, has nothing to do with enslaving others. If Rationality could conclude that it is logically correct to have an equal station, then humans would by nature be bound to this conclusion. I do not believe this is the case though.

I have two issues to point out on this argument.
First thing, it’d be useful to expand more the argument and make it clear. Are you assuming the premises that rationality is bound to humans by nature?

The other issue, is that do you find humans by their nature wanting equal justice? How did we come to reach the concept of equal station? Isn’t it through rationality?

Perhaps being a "civilized" creature would prohibit such things as slavery, but is it in our Nature to be Civilized?

Civilization is a very shaky concept since it can have many meanings. If by civilized you mean form collectives and communities to work towards better survival, then I might agree in that instance. As for it being in our nature, again, that depends on the social foundations already in place. By nature, we tend to form societies and therefore we might be by nature "civilized".

But if by civilization you mean acts, beliefs, and customs that are considered "civilized", then we're only fooling ourselves. Colonialists tend to pride themselves in their "civilization", but their actions (subjugating entire peoples based on the color of their skin) may not be deemed "civilized" on the same standards they supposedly uphold. So to answer your question, we do by nature tend to form civilizations, but we don't - by nature - tend to think in "civilized" terms.

Here what I think, it part of our human nature to care about ourselves. Everyone take cares of himself, except if he's abnormal, right?
But the notion of individual has been expanded to a family. Part of our nature is to take care of our family, protecting them from harm and bringing them the best you can get from food, money...etc. Nevertheless, we are beings that work in society, and is part of our nature to belong to a certain society. Thus, humans started forming society, and the individuals of the society must have something in common to hold this society. As humans advanced in areas of culture, humanity, politics, operation...etc. These societies developed to civilizations. Therefore, I see that it is part of our nature to form civilizations! I guess Moath you are right.
But then, is altruism part of the civilization? Of course, I'm speaking of altruism towards the people of the civilization, or let's say society. If this the case, then after all it might be of human's nature to have equal station between the members of the society.

[Moath_H]

Here what I think, it part of our human nature to care about ourselves. Everyone take cares of himself, except if he's abnormal, right?

I wouldn't know about abnormality. Ghandhi prioritized himself last when it came to his cause, and yet no one called him abnormal. But yes, the trend is that caring about your own self and continued survival is the accepted "norm".

But the notion of individual has been expanded to a family. Part of our nature is to take care of our family, protecting them from harm and bringing them the best you can get from food, money...etc. Nevertheless, we are beings that work in society, and is part of our nature to belong to a certain society. Thus, humans started forming society, and the individuals of the society must have something in common to hold this society. As humans advanced in areas of culture, humanity, politics, operation...etc. These societies developed to civilizations. Therefore, I see that it is part of our nature to form civilizations! I guess Moath you are right.

I dunno about being right, but lemme play Devil's Advocate: do you really care about your family? Or do you look at them as investments for your continued survival and maintenance of psychological stability? Collectives are rarely done selflessly: most of the time, we're looking after ourselves when we form these big societies. Nonetheless, our rationality as human beings has led us to concepts such as human rights and selflessness, all of which may or may not enhance our own individual survival. Which leads us to the next part of your post...

But then, is altruism part of the civilization? Of course, I'm speaking of altruism towards the people of the civilization, or let's say society. If this the case, then after all it might be of human's nature to have equal station between the members of the society.

Altruism is a quality that is selected for naturally since it leads to better survival and population growth. If civilization did indeed involve with altruistic behaviors being expressed over time, then it's safe to assume that altruism is mutually inclusive with civilization, although it must be emphasized that this may not necessarily be the case among civilizations and even within civilizations in times of war and oppression. But come to think of it, I don't know if each member has an equal station: after all, the first societies were not democratic and were heavily class-based. So, if that was the case, can we therefore assume, then, that each member has an "equal station"? Or can it be shown that even in ancient societies, people were equal but just not the same?

[Sponsored content]