American History

» pink101 - Francis Hutcheson

In response to Equality posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Are you familiar with Francis Hutcheson?
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Hut...
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Alienable vs Inalienable Rights

.
Here's some more on Hutcheson.
.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Ina...
.
This article is particularly important to any discussion about inalienable rights.
.
The idea of inalienable rights is NOT about the Creator.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Alienable vs Inalienable Rights

In response to Alienable vs Inalienable Rights posted by pink101:

I don't know how you can say that, Pink. The idea of "unalienable" or "inalienable" rights is very much linked with the concept of a Creator. These are rights NOT given to us by other human beings, but by..................God.

The concept of unalienable rights is inextricably intertwined with Theism (and its Enlightenment cousin, Deism).

» pink101 - Alienable vs Inalienable Rights

In response to Alienable vs Inalienable Rights posted by BrianTubbs:

.
The idea of "unalienable" or "inalienable" rights is very much linked with the concept of a Creator.
.
Not really.
.
The concept is that man exists in a natural state before he is a part of society. So, we can see that as meaning the way a human being is created entirely devoid of any societal influences--sui generis--au natural.--in the raw--as we are created. The rights involved are those that human beings own without any societal influence. The rights we have when there is no other human being to say what they are. The ones we have outside of society.
.
Volumes have been written about it.
.
But, nothing in that detracts from a creator. In fact, one of the major rights is the one that allows us to have our own ideas about a creator.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Self Evident

.
Our Founders were so sure of the establishment concept that they needed no proof other than that which was made evident by existence itself.
.
The clause is that, "We hold these truths to be self evident...",which means that no philosophy, no biology, no physical science, no learning, no anything, other than existence itself is necessary to prove that all human beings are created equal and that they are endowed in nature with certain rights that can neither be taken away or given away.
.
So, what is it that had to be so obvious to them that seems so elusive to us? And, why?

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Self Evident

In response to Self Evident posted by pink101:

What was obvious and self-evident to the Founders was that....

"All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

» pink101 - Francis Hutcheson

In response to Self Evident posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I think you are confusing the issue which has much more to do with the self evidence than it does with the identity of a creator.
.
The fact that our Founders spoke of Self Evident Truths is the issue on which we need to focus. Have you read any of Francis Hutcheson?
.
Let me quote some information here for our edification:
.
Inalienable rights
(Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source ~ http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Ina... ~)
"The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a set of human rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered. They are by definition, rights retained by the people. Inalienable rights may be defined as natural rights or human rights, but natural rights are not required by definition to be inalienable.
Origins
"'Inalienable' (or 'unalienable') is a term borrowed from English common law. Some property rights were alienable (they could be sold or granted) and some were inalienable (they could only be inherited according to fixed rule). The distinction between alienable and unalienable rights was introduced by Francis Hutcheson (philosopher) in his A System of Moral Philosophy (1755) based on the Reformation principle of the liberty of conscience. One could not in fact give up the capacity for private judgment (e.g., about religious questions) regardless of any external contracts or oaths to religious or secular authorities so that right is 'unalienable.' In discussions of social contract theory, 'inalienable rights' were said to be those rights that could not be surrendered by citizens to the sovereign. Such rights were thought to be natural rights, independent of positive law. Natural rights date back at least to the Roman Empire, and were recognized during medieval times, but in this context are an element of the classical liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries. Classical Liberal thinkers reasoned that each man is endowed with rights, of which the rights to life, liberty and property were thought to be fundamental. However, they reasoned that in the natural state only the strongest could benefit from their rights. Each individual forms an implicit social contract, ceding his or her rights to the authority to protect his or her right from being abused. For this reason, almost all classical liberal thinkers, for example, accepted the death penalty and incarceration as necessary elements of government. In England and America the 17th-century philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, and identified them as being 'life, liberty, and estate (or property)', and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. These ideas were claimed as justification for the rebellion of the American colonies. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, 'all men are born equally free,' and hold 'certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.' Jefferson took his division of rights into alienable and unalienable from Hutcheson, who made the distinction popular and important. In the The 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson famously condensed this to:
"'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. . .'"
.
There is more good stuff at the site. It is a valuable and worthwhile read.
.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Ina...
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Francis Hutcheson

In response to Francis Hutcheson posted by pink101:

I've read some of Hutcheson, mainly from the links you provided earlier in this discussion. I am not denying the impotance or significance of the "self-evident" aspect of their argument. I'm not diminishing or downplaying ANY of their argument. YOU are the one downplaying the reference to the Creator. And you do this in spite of the ADDITIONAL references to God in the document. You do this in spite of John Locke's references to God, which bolster his theories on the state of nature and the rights of man. And you do so in spite of William Blackstone's references to God, and on and on and on. God is all through English common law history, which deeply informed our Founders. You ignore this.

For that matter, God is all through the colonial charters and other resolutions leading up to the War for Independence. You ignore this as well.

You, sir, are the one downplaying and deemphasizing things. Not me. I agree otherwise with what you're saying.

» pink101 - The Important Point

In response to Francis Hutcheson posted by BrianTubbs:
.
YOU are the one downplaying the reference to the Creator.
.
I'm not meaning to downplay anything here. I think that the way the word, Creator, is used in the Declaration speaks to humanity's natural state--that's all. I don't think It was used to show that the Founders believed in God.
.
You are the one who is making it a point to argue over.
.
The purposes of the clause are easily understood in that it speaks to the institution of government in respect to human beings existing in a state of nature without societal controls. The purpose of the statement is not for the purpose of proving the existence of any god.
.
The important point deals with the idea that the Founders (#1) were being deprived of their rights by the crown; (#2) all men possess certain rights a priori to government; and, (#3) that because the Founders believed all men are equal to each other in their rights, government's purpose is to secure those rights.
.
I'm seeking to articulate the point with clarity. Maybe thinking out loud? I don't think very many people take the time to understand what is being said in the Declaration. More to this point is that people think the purpose of the statement somehow proves America was founded as a Christian nation. That WOULD be sloppy thinking, would it not?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Sloppy Thinking

In response to The Important Point posted by pink101:

It would definitely be 'sloppy thinking' for someone to argue that the DoI proves the USA was founded as a "Christian" nation. Main reason is that Jesus is not mentioned in the document.

However, the document doesn't just put the divine references in there as a peripheral footnote to a larger point. You are going to the other extreme by reducing those references to more or less just that - incidental footnotes.

The fact is that the Continental Congress thought Jefferson's original draft wasn't religious enough, so they ADDED references to the Deity. So, we have "Nature's God," "Creator," "Supreme Judge," and finally "Divine Providence."

That's FOUR references to God, Pink. Four! Now, don't tell me these were just rhetorical throwaways. The Founders were, at the very least, grounding their natural rights philosophy on Deism. At the very, very least, the DoI is a strongly Deist document. I think it's a little more than that, but it's AT LEAST a very strong statement affirming Deism.