| Question Home |
Position:Home>History> HISTORY BUFFS: Declaration Misinterpretation?Question: HISTORY BUFFS: Declaration Misinterpretation!? If the Declaration of Independence grants all American citizens the "unalienable rights" such as pursuit of happiness, life, and liberty!.!.!. how is it handled when someone's pursuit of happiness involves taking another person's life!? Or in a military sense: when liberty is only obtained by taking lives!?
I know taking someone's life is morally wrong, but I need some insight on this topic!. Anything you got, let me know! Thanks! So curious!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I love that quote the above contributor used!. The "unalienable rights" referred to in the declaration are "natural rights;" rights that are just taken as granted as a part of being alive!. You are alive, therefore you have the right to live, you exist as a sentient being, dependent on no other to make your decisions for you, therefore you have the right to liberty!. Here's a nice aside, the "pursuit of happiness" was originally written as "property!." the Founding fathers were very concerned with property rights since they viewed the British as infringing on those rights through taxation and other nefarious institutions created to deprive the industrious of the rightful possessions!. They decided that property didn't sound as lofty as pursuit of happiness, so they changed it!. Anyway, as was stated above, you right to all of these things ends when you infringe on these rights for others, hence the fist and nose quotation above!.Www@QuestionHome@Com For most people- normal people- pursuit of happiness does not involve taking lives!. Justice might, self defense might, national defense might but happiness, no!. At the time the Founding Fathers thought that pursuit of happiness could go until it infringed upon the rights of others!. The details of this statement was left to be worked out in the Constitution, state legislature and the common law!. If someone's pursuit of happiness goes far enough to require killing someone the seeker is obviously infringing on some one else's ffundamental right, life!. It is not just chance or literary license that the order of rights in the Declaration are life (first) liberty (second) and lastly, pursuit of happiness!. They are stated in their order of importance and which right takes priority!. (In the original drafts property took the place of pursuit of happiness!. At Franklin's suggestion pursuit of happiness was used as sounding less crass!.) So, some one's liberty is more important than some body's idea of happiness and life is more iimportant than liberty!. This is what uunderlies the idea of small`crimes being punished by fines, more serious crime by jail time and most serious crimes by capital punishment!. IN practice, if someone is crazy enough to kill for the joy of it he or she may be ruled insane and confined to an asylum!. More often the insanity defense fails and the person is jailed, or very rarely executed as a last resort!.Www@QuestionHome@Com I take it to mean pursuit of happiness as long as it doesn't harm yourself or others!. I mean yes you have the right to do what makes you happy, but someone else has the right to live!. So if what makes you happy hurts someone and takes away their life, then you can't be allowed to do it!. Besides, in my opinion the right to live is way more important than the right to do what makes you happy!. EDIT: Don't click on the link!.!.!.it's a fake site for viruses!.Www@QuestionHome@Com "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins!."Www@QuestionHome@Com |