TINSTAAFL - History & Moral Philosophy Part III

Rather than delve at length in what can be a very daunting subject that is entirely too large for this essay, suffice it to say that moral philosophy (or ethics) has played a leading role in the history of the world – both in the East and the West. From the early Greek philosophies of Aristotle and Plato to the modern philosophies of Aquinas, Kant and Rousseau, among others, history has shown that nations and religions rise and fall around certain philosophical teachings.


In the late eighteenth century the hypothetical state of nature became the philosophy du-jure. One of its chief proponents was the French philosopher Jean-Jaques Rousseau. It was from Rousseau that Thomas Jefferson borrowed heavily when he framed the Declaration of Independence with that immortal declaration of the rights of man – to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is so much more to be divined, however, from that most precious of all American documents next to the Constitution itself.


One of the problems that has arisen in the nation over the past two hundred plus years is the attempt by many to judge the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights based on contemporary philosophy that has ‘devolved’ politically over the years. From a strictly general semantic point of view these documents can only be truthfully analyzed and interpreted in the light of the prevailing moral philosophy and popular culture that existed at the time of their framing.


This is why there has been such a bone of contention over the ‘true’ meanings of the first and second amendments; why those who ascribe to a modern philosophy read it one way and fail to account for the precedents and history that lie behind them. This is true of any document or literary work. One cannot truly understand a novel, short story or other work of literature without knowing, at length, the history of the era in which they occur or were penned. It is also true of any legal document. These must be viewed in the light of the prevailing ordinances, resolutions or other rules and regulations that are labeled laws.


This is nothing new. Authors have used this device ad nauseum. Mark Twain wrote two novels transporting 19 century morality into Arthurian and Tudorian England. It is a flaw of thinking that must be understood to be merely a literary device only. History is what it is and any attempt to deconstruct it to suit a political agenda is tantamount to tyranny over the minds of all humanity.


Now, to return to the Declaration of Independence and that immortal verbiage, this was nothing more than a rationalization for the secession of the North American Colonies from the British Empire.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights…


We hold… that all men are created equal. Why that phraseology? Why not, We hold … that we are created equal… that we are endowed … This verbiage has always bothered me. At this point he changed from the first person to the third person. Why? What was he really trying to say?


Next is the statement, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just authority from the consent of the governed.


Consent of the governed. That they are endowed. Their creator, not our creator. The only possible conclusion I can come to is an old Latin adage that states quite succinctly Vox Populi, Vox Dei. This transliterates into English as the voice of the populace is the voice of the deity, or more plainly the voice of the people is the voice of God.


So, in essence Thomas Jefferson was saying that it was the voice of the American People who decided that their desires to separate from the tyranny of England would become a reality with the assurance that it was spoken as though it were the voice of God.

This phraseology, however has taken on epic proportions with the false assumption that the rights enumerated were granted by an omniscient being when in reality these rights were granted to the people by themselves.


In the next installment I will delve further into the reasons why this is so.