Sunday, October 9, 2011
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Hi students. So, the title of this post will resonate with all of you. Some people use this founding national idea as a means of justifying all human behaviors (as in, we can use the land as we will, despite environmental consequences, because humans in America have the"right" to pursue happiness). Given the capaciousness (look it up) of this idea, how do we balance this "right" with the rights of "other" people in our communities (think of women, or gay and lesbian Americans, as our readings have encouraged us to do) and with the "rights" (if they exist) of other nonhuman entities (animals, the air, the earth) with whom we share our lives?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When one deals with the determination of rights, rights first must be defined considering the connotation of liberty and rights vary within society. There are ‘negative’ rights, which state that individuals must not be disturbed from their natural state, for instance the freedom of speech is one of these. Individuals essentially have free speech until another prohibits their speech. In these matters inaction is key, the right acts as limitation upon authorities and those who would abuse others. On the other hand, many advocate from ‘positive’ rights which are typically not natural, and would only exist with in a society. One prime example at the moment is the ‘right’ to health care, in the natural state health care is non-existent and thus it must be actively granted. Another area of dispute emerges over the limits of these rights, most contend that rights end as soon that their neighbors’ noses begin. Meaning rights are allowed until they directly affect another’s rights, to define the limit as indirect affect effectively prohibits all rights for all actions carry some negative effects upon others. Thus an individual’s rights end when they conflict with the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of another.
ReplyDeleteThe definitions of the three Jeffersonian rights-life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness- have been debated since they have been written. Life can refer to just the life of citizens or to any human individual or also to any biological life within the boundaries of the nation. These three interpretations carry differing impacts upon the implementation of ethics and law. The first was assumed from the outset of the writing; animals, plants, and non-citizens were maltreated and destroyed in plantations, on the railroads, and under the plow. The second interpretation allowed for the return of the right to life to those under the peculiar institution, but also inspired the pro-life movement seeing that individual’s liberty ought to be sacrificed in order to protect life. This view was intensified when life is extended to any biological life, so in effect the , call to safe a forest from the destruct by industry is a similar call to have a fetus from a knife or a criminal from lethal ejection, the last is the salvation of an individual who often had renounced their humanity in the taking of another’s life. Thus the definition of life determines how one ought to approach issues, in the end the protection of life trumps the protection of other rights, liberty and pursuit of happiness must often give way to protect life.
Liberty tends to be an even more vacuous term than life, but in the end it is best defined by individuals acting and speaking as they will. Liberty then is only limited by its conflict with another’s life or liberty. Liberty often contains the right to vote, if the society is democratic. This liberty was the goal of Anthony and Jefferson, both aimed to grant their constituency enfranchisement and control of their government.
The finial right is the pursuit of happiness, which honestly originally meant right to private property. It has now been extended to cover an individual’s goals to satisfy their wants and ambitions. The arguments of Milk, Allen, and Friedan focused more around this point, Allen and Friedan argued that women ought to have the same societal roles as men and thus be able to have similar ambitions and objectives as their male counterparts. Milk argues for individuals like himself to be able to pursue the same ambitions as their heterosexual counterparts. On the scale of rights, the pursuit of happiness must in the end give way to liberty and life. In effect, ambitions of industry must be limited by danger to human life, and the life the environment, free speech must not be contended if it conflicts with another’s pursuit of happiness, and choice should be curbed when life is on the line.
As Americans, we are given the rights - or privileges - of life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness. We should not abuse these privileges. As Americans, we have also, in essence, given all other Americans these rights and privileges. These ideas are part of our nation's foundation.
ReplyDeleteHowever, these ideas are very broad, and not completely inherent. People can define these rights in very different ways. In effect, all Americans should have these three foundational rights, yet this is not what happens. Some people seem to overshadow the importance of other people, and everyone does not have the opportunity to make use of these privileges. We must be careful not to interfere with other people's rights and privileges. However, this statement is also very vague. What is the best way to do this? In my opinion, the best way is by following this simple command: Think of others' interests as more important than your own. Do not think only about yourself, but think about what you can do for other people (Summarized from Philippians 2:3-4). This is a seemingly simple command, but in practice it can be very difficult. Yet if everyone follows this comand, everyone would have the right (as well as the opportunitiy to make use of the rights) to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Also, we as humans are keepers of the land, not owners of the land. We can use the land to suit our purposes, yet we must also be careful with it. We should treat the land with the same respect as we would treat something we borrowed from someone else - something that we have been trusted with but that is not our own.
Generally laws cover your rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but where they are found to be impeding is most noticeable when your personal actions could be detriment to the rights of others. Assuming this is the intention of the law then it may be a reasonable adjustment to say, The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as long as it does not impede upon the rights of others. Extending this to our biosphere as its own separate entity, we could consider it an under represented minority, similar to racial minorities.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe it is a way of justifying all human behavior. I see it as people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but in doing so we have to make sure every living thing has this right as best we can. When we have these rights, we have to also remember other beliefs, such as treat others the way you want to be treated. If you want to have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you have to make sure you do not destroy other living beings ability to do the same.
ReplyDeleteon the issue of women, gay, etc. rights, I believe there should never be discrimination against anyone. The problem is how engrained society becomes, and how hard change becomes. Slowly, society has changed to make sure these rights are all encompassing to everyone, and there is plenty more to come once a majority of people are ready for it.
Americans may have more freedoms relative to other people across the world, but the scope of the law prohibits much activity that could be classified as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Generally speaking we are free to do whatever we want, so long as it doesn't offend the majority of Americans too much. As our culture changes, so does what we find permissible under "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The unspecific nature of that phrase lends itself well to how we use it. Someday we may imbue nature with the right of "life." Gay marriage might one day be protected under "the pursuit of happiness." The application of these principles will change as our societal values do.
ReplyDeleteThe scope of American freedom is clearly defined in the constitution that was formed under the ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is this idea that has been taken out of context to mean that one person's happiness is more important than people in their community. Because Americans have the right to pursue happiness they often forget that their pursuit can often impact the pursuit of those around them. It is important for humans in general to remember this when they are seeking happiness because they could be effected the same way. A good solution to this problem is for everyone to remember the golden rule and use that as their guideline when pursuing happiness.
ReplyDeleteWhen these rights were given to the people they were created with thoughts of the people in mind and what they had struggled through to achieve freedom. They wouldn't have believe the country they had created would grow to 50 states with 300 million citizens. There were no thoughts to think about the future and wonder how Americans would progress politically, economically, and technologically. Over the years there have been instances where we try to respect everyone and everything, developing laws and ways to help the land. However, I feel from a Native American viewpoint we need to do a lot more. Native viewpoints view the land as higher power and deserver a greater amount of respect. With out the the air we breathe and the water we drink, humans would not be around today. So in my opinion, I believe the rights of American Citizens and the rights of gay and lesbian Americans, women, and others are less important than the rights of the land. The land is a treasure, we breathe it, live off of it, and build off of it. Although these practices are not around as much today, it is best remembering how a lot of our ancestors started. Being Native I have a different outlook of the earth and how it should be treated. However, I still feel we could still do a lot more for the earth that does not involve politics or have an economic advantage.
ReplyDeleteThe right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness hopefully does not overrule one's moral attitude. However, there are many different “types” of morals depending on the person. Maintaining a balance of this right between different people in our communities is difficult. There will always be people who will treat others (of different morals and beliefs) unequally.
ReplyDeleteThe right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness hopefully does not overrule one's moral attitude. However, there are many different “types” of morals depending on the person. Maintaining a balance of this right between different people in our communities is difficult. There will always be people who will treat others (of different morals and beliefs) unequally.
ReplyDeleteAs Evan says above, "The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness hopefully does not overrule one's moral attitude." I believe that the main way to "balance" these ideas is through selflessness. Our culture is a society of "me". From the time we are 2 years old, we want everything our way. This is never remedied as the rights of parents to discipline their children has been taken away due to the danger of child abuse. As we get older our every whim is shown to us through commercials and even our education. This sad case is only nurtured more throughout the teen years as culturally they are a time of stupidity and rebellion. There is one thing that reigns through each of these..selfishness. If we were to turn the culture around from commercialism to outreach the balance between rights would almost become instinctive. Its very disheartening to see all the damage throughout history that the "me" society has caused. Although this is an almost impossible task to turn the culture, I believe that this idea of unselfishness is the very idea our nation was built upon. This is shown throughout the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by word choice and their ideas.
ReplyDeleteOur nation tries to limit discrimination by creating equal-opportunity laws in an attempt to grant equal rights to the minority population.
ReplyDeleteTo help give rights to the non-human creatures (animals, plants) the government creates national parks and animal reserves. This is done to limit the human influence on nature so that its rights are preserved.
In order to balance an individual’s right to life, liberty and happiness with the rights of the rest of society, each person must come to realize that their happiness depends not only on their personal status, but also on the status of those around them. Unfortunately, this equalization of society rarely happens. There have been times that cultures have managed to come together, such as after natural disasters or national emergencies, but after a few months or years, that society has once again broken down into its old divisions. Different governments have attempted to artificially break these boundaries apart (think, Communism), but have ultimately failed terribly, and ended up making things worse rather than better. In the end, the balancing of a person’s rights with the rights of society is left up to each individual. The “rich” must decide if they will give some of their privileges up to benefit the “poor”, and the “poor” must decide if they will give some of their privileges up for the “poorest”.
ReplyDeleteAs previous people have said, selflessness is the key to "balance" one's rights to life, liberty and happiness. History has shown numerous ways in which people have come together in the darkest of times. And, sometimes, these dark times can bring out the worst in one's self. Putting aside the anger and hate and differences may allow for a stronger bond within society.
ReplyDeleteEven though there are laws attempting to grant opportunites to the majority of the nation which consists of the minorities, dodging beliefs and cultural norms of certain groups blocks the way to ultimate equality. If everyone could put into effect the phrase "Treat others the way you want to be treated" then that would put society one step closer to equally. Then again, we do not live in a perfect world.
Throughout the majority of American history, a constant struggle between the "I" and the "we" can be seen. In my personal opinion, I never saw the validity of this struggle; American existence has been defined by the "I" in the "we." So when I consider "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," I think I need to consider how we all fit together. Happiness for all, or happiness for one — they're more alike than polar arguments would have you believe. We have the right to build a happier world, and by extension, be happy. By concurring the environment, do we really build happiness for ourselves? Or do we put strain on our culture, politics, and existence? By walking on the backs of the underprivileged, do we build our happiness, or feed into a massive social guilt. We have the right to build a more perfect world, so that we may be more free, fruitful, and happy in our existence.
ReplyDeleteThe right to pursue happiness has always been more of a slogan then anything else. Given the original quote by Locke was actually "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Property" the meaning has changed considerably. Happiness and it's pursuit is not necessarily as important as some would have you think. Happiness is not necessary for a productive populace and since generally people will seek happiness in the most idiotic self-destructive ways possible it would be better if people contented themselves to acquire property and replace happiness with that.
ReplyDelete