Category: Declaration Of Independence

The preamble reveals the rights and freedoms that people should enjoy while under the leadership of a given government. It outlines the circumstances under which one can be deprived of his/her fundamental rights, such a person is free to break away from autocratic leadership and chart his/her own path.

Therefore, the introduction is attempting to alert people that personal independence is just some steps away in case a given leadership style does not prioritize the views of the governed. In addition, one should not entertain insults and abuses since they belittle an individual.

The preamble informs the US citizens that there are many options in life; therefore, they should not tolerate injustice towards them from the British. The Congress is addressing citizens of the United States of America (USA). It requires the citizens to remain vigil on the leadership style exercised on them.

Moreover, the citizens ought to explain the reasons behind their displeasure with the current government or leader in office before actual separation. It reminds the citizens that it is their mandate to ensure that the government is not destructive in handling all issues.

The accusation section discloses to the reader a leader who is authoritative, that is, he does not consider the interests of others. For example, he refused to assent a law that could accommodate large groups of people. In addition, the reader comprehends the state of this nation, where people who holds different opinions to the King are butchered and also held captives at the far islands.

The reader gets to understand that human freedom is curtailed in these states and only those who are darlings to the King are offered little freedom. The King also has manipulated the nation’s justice system. These abuses, surely, legitimise Congress’s action against the King.

For instance, in invading the people’s rights and then going ahead to dissolve the House of Representatives so that he cannot be held accountable legitimise this action.

Further, his refusal to assent to judicial laws shows that the King is obstructing the provision of justice for all. He also acted without consulting the legislature in sending standing armies to quell violence. The King filled new offices with his cronies, who were acting with his demands of harassing the US citizens.

The Entreaty Section exposes the numerous attempts that the Congress has tried to seek justice from their courts, only to be subjected to harsh treatment for reporting their grievances. Again, this section shows the discontent that the US citizens have for their British brethren who they term as enemy during war and friends during peaceful times.

This is because they have never intervened when the ruler disrespects the rights of the people. This section is right in antagonizing the British public against the American cause, because over time, there have been calls for intervention by the American people during tough times but the British brethren did not respond to the calls.

Therefore, the American citizens feel cheated by the British public and the natives goes ahead to warn them not to attempt controlling them in the future.

The Resolve Section plays a significant role of indicating the break away from colonial ruling of the British. It further shows the willingness of the American people to lead themselves, for example, build peace, levy war, and initiate trade links amongst others.

The signatories to the declaration risked their lives and fortunes in signing the final declaration. This meant that they were ready to lose their holiness, fortunes and lives for the sake of the declaration of independence.

Introduction

Legitimate political authority is that which is derived from the consent given by the people to be governed. This is based on Locke’s explanation in which he applies the social contract technique. The authority may, however, be withdrawn when a state interferes with or reduces the freedom to be enjoyed by subjects (Mukherjee & Ramaswamy 2001).

In the assumption of legitimate political power, a state has the right to develop laws and measures to be used for the purpose of controlling and conserving individual or public property.

In certain instances, the state may use the community to ensure that stipulated laws are well respected and adhered to for the sake of every person. Typically, legitimate political power is controlled by trust and the entire community is expected to play a big role in stipulating the intentions.

Freedom and Nature of Political Authority

Generally, the legitimacy of any state has to do with the right the state has to control its subjects (Corbett 2009, p. 45). This right and its correlative obligations constitute a special moral relationship between the state and each individual who consents. In Lockean’s view, the justification of a state ultimately gives us moral reasons to refrain from undermining it.

Ordinarily, it gives subjects moral reasons to positively support the state or perhaps promote the existence of similar states. Seemingly, justice and happiness of others look like ends that may require positive promotion by all moral agents. However, the justification of a state in this manner cannot form the basis of any special moral relationship between it and its subjects.

Ordinarily, no single individual can be made to succumb to another without his or her own consent (Simmons 2001, p. 129). Ostensibly, the legitimacy of political power springs from the morals that often exist in societies. Subjects, therefore, have a moral duty to obey.

However, Locke also offers a different and quite general argument for the moral and prudential preferences of states ruled by the limited governments to life in the state of nature (Jahanbegloo 2004, p. 32). This argument is plainly addressed to those who maintain that the state in any form is morally or prudentially inferior to life without the state.

As a result, state legitimacy is the logical correlation of various obligations, including the subjects’ political obligations. A state’s legitimacy right is in part a right held specifically against the subjects bound by any state imposed duties arising from morally significant relations (Rawls 2009, p. 23).

It follows, therefore, that state legitimacy may be complete or partial, depending on whether such relations hold with all or only with some of those against whom the state enforces the duties it imposes. By and large, governments can presumably be illegitimate even where the states they govern are not.

According to Estlund (2012, p. 35), however, state and legitimacy seem not to be independent of one another, since an illegitimate state could not have a legitimate government. Arguably, states earn their legitimacy by virtue of the consent of their members. This consent empowers a central authority to create a viable political society for the benefit of everyone.

The fact that a state is legitimate with respect to a subject typically results in the subject having feelings, beliefs, or attitudes that generate allegiance and support. It is important to note that a state may actually be legitimate with respect to its subjects without receiving much or any support from the subjects.

This is, however, pegged on the fact that subjects may be sufficiently immoral, deceived, stupid, overwhelmed, weak-willed, or manipulated. As noted by Simmons (2001, p. 134), it is correct and perfectly natural to say that a state is legitimate, but unstable, unpopular, or unsupported.

When people fail to uphold a state due to their own shortcomings rather than to its lack of moral authority, this cannot reasonably be described as a reduction of its legitimacy. It is a mistake, then, to focus in an account of state legitimacy on the attitudes of subjects or on the capacity of a state to produce or sustain these attitudes.

This is insofar as it is the positive attitudes and beliefs of subjects that reliably produce their compliance with and support for states or regimes, instead of the nature of those actual relations with the state that obligate them to support it and give it the right to rule them.

In order to explain the origin of political power, Locke began with a description of the state of nature (Nyquist 2013, p. 51). Without being compelled by anyone or getting pressure from any external source, individuals became political subjects by choice. Despite the existence of a political society, individuals were still allowed the right to privacy.

This dichotomy between the state and society, and between the private and public, was fundamental to Locke’s theorizing. Since then, it has become an integral part of the Western intellectual tradition. Locke rejected Filmer’s biblical account of the origins of political power without abandoning religious foundations.

His theory rested on a firm and explicit moral relationship between the human being and God. Locke saw this shared duty to God to preserve one’s self as part of God’s creation as the basic moral law of nature, which existed in the pre-political order or the state of nature.

He tried to show that political power could be understood only if it was derived from a state in which all individuals were perfectly free to do, with regard to their person and possessions, what they thought fit within the bounds of the laws of nature. Locke was quite categorical that God had made everything for subsistence and not for waste (Mukherjee & Ramaswamy 2001).

Locke further argued that an individual’s life was not his own, but was given by God as a trust, meaning that human being have no right to destroy or kill themselves. They are not permitted to destroy, kill, rob, or enslave other beings who are considered equal in the presence of God.

In Locke’s arguments, political authority, like all moral claims, is ultimately based on religious obligations, which are the source of all morality. Although his arguments are politically radical, they are quite far from being secular. Unlike Hobbes who argued for an unlimited right of nature that each individual can claim, Locke stresses on a natural duty of self preservation owed to God for having created us (Hobbes et al. 1999).

Certainly, this duty rules out conflict, for not only do we need to preserve ourselves, but we also need to perceive the fact that we are all equal before God. As such, the state of nature is moral. For Locke, political authority is not mere power, but power with right.

This right can only be derived from an already existing right, and because individuals have no right to give away their duty to preserve themselves, they cannot morally or logically grant rightful power to an absolute authority. Locke considers any form of supreme power as being illegitimate, and sees the various arguments presented by Filmer’s as wrong and wicked.

Generally, Locke’s description of the state of nature is not as gloomy and pessimistic as Hobbes’. The state of nature is not of license, for though the individual is free from any superior power, he or she is still subject to the laws of nature. The laws of nature are known to human beings through the power of reason, which directs them towards their proper interests. Besides natural rights, human beings also have natural duties to discharge.

Liberty, for Locke, is not the freedom to do what one chooses, but to act within the bounds of the laws of nature. Freedom presupposes order and is possible only within a framework of law. To a very extent, law helps to keep individuals from being subject to the arbitrary will of others. Natural rights act as constraining factors on the powers of the state, once these are established through a contract between individuals.

In Locke’s view, personal independence and freedom are fundamental human rights. No one has a right to coerce or dominate another person in the state of nature (Locke 1996, p. 26). Everyone has an equal right to his or her natural freedom without being subjected to the will or authority of any other individual. In his clarification, Locke argues that the laws of nature are those that are dictated by reason.

Since rights and duties are derived from the laws of nature, the most important of these is the right to hold others responsible for a breach of law and to punish them accordingly. Although Locke categorically rejects the right of a person to kill one’s self, he grants the right to inflict penalties, including death penalty, on those who violate the laws in general. Locke explicitly rejects the right of the individual to commit suicide and murder.

As noted by Ward (2010, p. 105), the compulsion to constitute a civil society is to protect and preserve freedom and to enlarge it. The state of nature is one of liberty and equality, but it is also one where peace is not secure, being constantly upset by the corruption and viciousness of degenerate men. Apparently, it lacks three important wants. First, there is the want of an established, settled, known law.

There is also the want of a known and indifferent judge, and finally, the want of an executive power to enforce just decisions.

Through the state of nature, Locke tries to explain the meaning and importance of authority, namely that human beings came together to ensure the observance of the laws of nature, to guarantee the greater possibility of impartiality in the implementation and execution of rules that govern common life, and thereby increase the chance of peace that impartiality entails.

Locke brings out the perils of human partiality, and how absolute power makes partiality potentially dangerous (Grant 2010, p. 63). Flattery and servility only makes it worse. He recognized the tremendous potentiality of power for making human life better, but fears that it has to be entrusted only to those who are responsible towards those on whom it is exercised.

Ostensibly, most societies are based on force rather than right (Mack 2009, p. 16). Political authority is a trust, and if the terms of the trust are violated, the community has the right to take remedial measures in order to preserve itself. It is on these grounds that he objects Hobbes’ argument that only total order can provide for commodious living.

It does not seem credible that people who do not trust one another can entrust an all powerful sovereign to safeguard their interests. He found it objectionable that there are no safety measures against potential violence and oppression of absolute authority.

Through a contract, individuals consent to submit to the majority rule and organize themselves as a community or civil society. They surrender their powers partially, namely the three specific rights and constitute the natural right to enforce the laws of nature. Once a civil society is established, the individuals establish a government to act as a judge in the nature of a fiduciary power for promoting certain ends.

Conclusion

As can be deduced from the preceding discussion, Locke advocates for a limited sovereign state. Certainly, reason and experience have taught him that political absolutism is untenable. Describing the characteristics of a good state, Locke says that it exists for those who form it, and not the vice versa.

It has to be based on the consent of the people subject to the constitution and the rule of law. It is limited in two ways. First, its powers are derived from the people and are held in trust and, secondly, it is subject to natural laws and individual rights.

Reference List

Corbett, RJ 2009, The Lockean Commonwealth, State University of New York, Albany.

Estlund, D 2012, The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press, New York.

Grant, RW 2010, John Locke’s Liberalism, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Hobbes, T, John, B, & Vere, C 1999, Hobbes and Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Jahanbegloo, R 2004, Iran: Between Tradition and Modernity, Lexington Books, Oxford, UK.

Locke, J 1996, Some Thoughts Concerning Education: And, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Mack, E 2009, John Locke, Continuum International Publishing Group, New York, NY.

Mukherjee, S & Ramaswamy, S 2004, History Of Political Thought A: Plato To Marx, PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India.

Nyquist, M 2013, Arbitrary Rule: Slavery, Tyranny, and the Power of Life and Death, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Rawls, J 2009, Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Simmons, AJ 2001, Justification and Legitimacy: Essays on Rights and Obligations, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Ward, L 2010, John Locke and Modern Life, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

The writer of the Declaration of Independence has used various stylistic devices to bring out different messages in the text. These stylistic tools help shape the perception of the reader to agree with the writer. The writer has used antithesis, linguistic patterns, rhythm, and the use of a poem writing structure as stylistic devices to convince the reader that there is need to be united since all people are equal in the eyes of God.

The use of rhythm in the Declaration of Independence is used with the intention of emphasizing the points the author is making. Rhythm is created in the text through repetition of phrases to bring out linguistic patterns. For example, the statement: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator” repeats a linguistic pattern. “That all men are created” and “that they are endowed” have the same linguistic pattern.

The two parts have the same balance in terms of usage of verbs, nouns, articles, and adjectives. The text also takes approximately the same length of time to pronounce out loud. All these characteristics form a rhythm all through the text. The purpose of this rhythm in the text is to create a memorable pattern. This makes it much easier for the reader to remember the Declaration of Independence.

Another stylistic aspect that has been used to change the perception of the reader of the Declaration of Independence is the use of antithesis. This stylistic device been used in various occasions all through the text. Antithesis is the comparison of two contrasting ideas in the same sentence.

For example, the sentence: “…it becomes necessary for people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them…” uses antithesis. This statement hints out that people are supposed to be united, yet it has become very necessary for them to stand alone.

The statement also shows the contrast that even though men feel independent by cutting the political ties that bring them together, they serve one God who has entitled all of them to live together. This is a unifying factor among the audience of the Declaration of Independence text. This is relevant in the text as it shows the reader that people are not different from one another, and that together they can achieve great things.

The writer has written the Declaration of Independence like a poem. The use of this writing structure can be based on the fact that the writer wants the reader to believe in the recital. The author wants the reader to also recite the Declaration such that they are not only declaring the independence of the country, but they are also declaring their own personal independence. The poem structure, therefore, makes the Declaration easier to relate with.

In conclusion, the use of rhythm, antithesis, linguistic patterns, and poetry has helped the writer show inequality in the country. The writer employed these specific stylistic devices to help shape the perception of the reader, thereby delivering the intended message successfully. The devices have helped the author of the Declaration of Independence not only pass on a message, but also ensure that the message is received without alteration.

Parallelism is achieved by the repetitive use of words to emphasize a point. Anaphora is the technique where words are used repeatedly at the beginning of successive lines and are mostly used in persuasive speech. In periodic sentences, the main points are mainly at the end of sentences. This is the technique that Jefferson uses in writing the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence was authored by Thomas Jefferson, under a committee that included Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, and with a lot of influence by Rousseau. Thomas Jefferson became the Governor of Virginia in 1779. He was the First Secretary of State between 1790 and 1793 and was the Vice President under John Adams (1797-1801). In 1800 he was elected President and he served two terms (1801-1809). Within this time he negotiated for the Louisiana Purchase which was considered as one of his greatest achievements. He tried to abolish slavery (Jacobus, 79). Thomas Jefferson became the third President of the United States. He gained attention through his pamphlet, “A Summary View of the Rights of British America”. Among his other writing was the book, Notes of Virginia, (1782). His writing skills were therefore considered exemplary and the skills can be seen in this historic document.

Jefferson’s writing is based on using periodic sentences, which have the qualities of balance and parallelism. The author stated that God created all men equal, and they are endowed by their creator. The creator provides them rights of Liberty, being happy, and Life. The main point in this famous quote, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’ comes at the end of the sentence… Jefferson uses the same repetition in using “He” when referring to the King of England to emphasize not the personality, but the sovereignty of a nation. “He is repeatedly used while listing on the facts that the King has or has not done that has led to the United States of America to demand their freedom (Jacobus, 80).

Jefferson used the word “He” in listing the serious issues that the King of England has or has not done, those issues which may lead to a revolution by the colony. Though the Declaration does not list the causes of the demands, the document comes out clearly because of the style that Jefferson uses. For the trivial acts against the colony the word “for “is used. For example “ for imposing taxes…, for cutting off our trade” The word “We” referring to the Committee is also used repeatedly while referring to the various things the committee has done before making their demands.

He continues to list the actions by the use of we followed by the verb in the past tense to emphasize the several ways they have tried and to show their patience in ”we have warned….., we have appealed……” He again uses “We” and for more clarification decides to add who the “we” represents in concluding what the Committee has decided, “we, therefore the Representative of the United States……publish and declare…..”.

In using this technique Jefferson enumerates to illustrate the patience of an oppressed people. The declaration comes out as a careful meditation and decisions of exceptionally calm people while the document comes out persuasively and convincing to the reader. The Declaration of Independence comes out as one of the documents where parallelism is applied.

Work Cited

Jacobus, Lee. A World of Ideas. New York: Bedford St Martin’s publishers, 2005. Print.

Though the law sometimes provides loopholes for citizens to break the law when necessary, there are a few scenarios in which we may be compelled to disobey the law as a matter of duty. Even the Declaration of Independence for the United States of America states that “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…when…the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government….”

Thus, our law system has the inherent task of facing righteous law-breakers.

The case of self-defense in a violent confrontation is one situation in which we may be required to disobey the law. Take, for example, the following situation: A man keeps an unregistered gun loaded on his bedside table. One night he wakes up to hear an armed burglar breaking into his home. When the man gets out of bed with his gun, he finds the burglar in his children’s room, where he aims his gun and shoots the burglar down. In this scene, the man has broken a couple of laws despite the fact that he acted like any of us might have in the same situation. Using his unregistered gun was illegal, and assault with a deadly weapon is illegal as well. Whereas the law makes the self-defense loophole available to justify the latter, using his gun may still stand as a violation in a court of law. Ethically, however, the man had a duty to act the way he did. He was charged with the responsibility to protect his life and the well being of his children, and though he knew his gun was unregistered, taking the time to wait for the police or find another weapon in the house may have been less successful, and the burglar could have done harm.

Also, in the military, it may be considered illegal to disobey commanding officers.

However, in the event that a soldier is commanded to do something that is clearly unethical and unnecessarily endangers human life, the soldier is charged with the duty to disobey their commanding officer because following such an order would be a negative against the greater good.

In the case of Abu Graib and the controversial prisoner abuse trials, we see soldiers who use the excuse of duty to justify their torturous actions; but the duty in this moral dilemma is truly to resist in order to preserve human life and dignity.

In the event that they really were commanded to humiliate and torture their prisoners, the soldiers should have the presence of mind to recognize the severe ethical transgression this command proposes. If they recognize this transgression, they would be required by a sense of morality and humanity to disobey their officers, despite the fact that this would be a violation of laws originally set down to protect them in urgent and dangerous situations.

A situation in which it is proposed that we must break the law would only have validity if the law violation was committed for the greater good of the people or to prevent death or destruction. When these standards are met, it is often in a situation where time for reason has been reduced to a matter of seconds, and the possibility of a mistake is a risk.

There is always the likelihood that while committed with the intention of preventing death or destruction, an illegal act could fail to meet these standards after the fact. Like, for example, if the man from the earlier scene shot the burglar in his children’s bedroom then discovered it was really his wife coming home late and checking on her kids. Still, because the reaction time in a situation like this would be so brief and the possibility of danger is there, one would still be under a duty to disobey the laws when one perceives such a threat.

‘The Declaration of Independence’ is one of the importance documents in the history of America as it has laid a foundation to a better constitution (Maddern 534). This paper held the records of all the injustices that occurred to the citizens at the hands of the Great Britain rulers. Therefore, a union known as Second Continental Congress formed a committee to air their grievances through an official statement from one of their members, Thomas Jefferson. This text further, explained the demands of the group, for instance, the need for natural or legal rights which included the right for Revolution (Anderson 31). Since then, this testimonial has become an essential pillar in the push for human rights.

On the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson argued that the sole purpose of the text was not to discover new laws or arguments that have not been ascertained before by any other person, but rather bring a justification to the need for independence from the ruling party. The distinctive feature of his argument is the fact that there was the lack of respect from the rulers resulting in the violation of both political and economic rights.

On the contrary, he sees this action as a refusal to “assent” to the fundamental standards of human dignity that could facilitate a better relationship and overall development, “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable… ” (Parkinson 44).According to him, this lack of respect will not disappear unless a rebellion takes place to facilitate the activation of their rights as colonialists.

Today, the race issue has made the Declaration less relevant. The rampant problem of racism is a significant hindrance ‘to acting together for all’ as Jefferson intent ended in his statement of having typical “civil religion.”It is quite the opposite as different people have grown overly suspicious of others depending on their races. Besides, the authority of the federal government is also a contributor to reducing the text’s relevance.

In fact, a comprehensible constitution has been designed to be followed especially for issues concerning the human rights. The law provides clear procedures to pursue such matters instead of resulting to revolution, failure to which will lead to the breach of the Constitution (Steele 1).

In the contemporary American several liberties are at stake. One such freedom is right to live especially among the young black Americans. It is a growing concern as the black youths are shot dead by people in the authority due to the increasing suspicion. In fact, they are considered a security threat, unlike their white American counterparts. The other liberty that is at risk is the right to equal treatment under the law.

The violation of this right is seen to continuously occur due to the extensive racism. Most of the people of color have been heard complaining of unequal treatment or discriminated against in particular by the authority. This issue also results in divided decisions in government as some people struggle to prove to be better than others (Sargent 429).

From the above explanations, it quite evident that the argument in ‘The Declaration of Independence’ contributed significantly to American history of human rights (Ray 32). However, in current contemporary society, the text loses its relevancy due to the development of other better ways of solving disputes through the stipulated constitution. Nonetheless, some liberties are at stake even in the light of the constitution as noted above.

Works Cited

Anderson, Owen. “Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.” Self-Evident Truths in American Law The Declaration of Independence and God (n.d.): 31-49. Web.

Maddern, Stacy Warner. “Thomas Jefferson: The Declaration of Independence – By Michael Hardt.” WorkingUSA 11.4 (2008): 534-36. Web.

Parkinson, Robert G. “The Declaration of Independence.” A Companion to Thomas Jefferson Cogliano/A Companion to Thomas Jefferson (2012): 44-59. Web.

Ray, Kristofer. “Thomas Jefferson and A Summary View of the Rights of British North America.” A Companion to Thomas Jefferson Cogliano/A Companion to Thomas Jefferson (2012): 32-43. Web.

Sargent, Daniel. “Ark of the Liberties: America and the World – By Ted Widmer.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 42.2 (2012): 429-30. Web.

Steele, Brian. “Jefferson’s America.” Thomas Jefferson and American Nationhood (n.d.): 1-10. Web.

Introduction

Thomas Jefferson was a prominent political leader of the 18^th century who made his name in the history of United States of America by drafting the famous Declaration of Independence. Jefferson’s desire was to return to Virginia to help the state government in writing the constitution. However the Congress appointed him to the five member committee that was assigned the task of writing the Declaration for the Colonists. The committee appointed him to produce the necessary points for the Declaration to be reviewed by them. Jefferson relied upon the works of several scholars such as Locke and Hutcheson for drafting the Declaration. At the same time he relied on help from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, his own draft of the Virginia constitution along with several other documents (Library of Congress, 2006).

Jefferson produced a remarkable document supporting the colonists in their right to freedom from the British rule. The document was based on the premise that all men are created equal and therefore they must have their inalienable rights to life, freedom and pursuit of happiness (Library of Congress, 2006).

There were several changes made by the review committee and then by the Continental Congress. Still, Jefferson maintained his authorship. He was proud of it but was critical of the changes made relating to the accusation of slave trade.

In this paper I aim to discuss in detail some of the influences that helped Jefferson in drafting one of the most remarkable documents of revolution and independence ever drafted in the history of United States of America.

Locke’s Influence On Jefferson

According to the article “The Philosophical Basis of Modern Racism” (n.d.), John Locke had strongly made his influence upon Americans. Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence is a prominent example of Locke’s influence. Jefferson considered Locke one of his greatest heroes. He admired his philosophies greatly. Upon analyzing the strategy and language use of the Declaration of Independence one cannot ignore the influence of the Second Treatise by Locke. Locke’s Second Treatise is about the equality of people and their rights to live a free life according to their wishes within the limitations imposed by laws that are there to protect their basic rights. Likewise the Declaration of Independence states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal and were endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The above statement actually echoes Locke’s views on liberty and equality. As we compare Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence with Locke’s Second Treatise we find both of them revolutionary in nature. Jefferson had tried to explain the fact that the King of England had actually abused his rights and as such, rebellion was not only inevitable but justified. The draft that was submitted to the Continental Congress showed that the King of England, George III, had actually abused his powers by forcing slave trade on protesting colonists. Although many interpretations of the above preposition have been made still one thing is clear; like Locke Jefferson wanted the abolition of slavery and for this reason the clause was added to the Declaration to be approved by the Continental Congress.

Francis Hutcheson Influence On Jefferson

McReynold (2008) traces the influence of the Scottish Enlightenment Movement on Americans in his article “The Legacy of Frances Hutcheson”. Hutcheson was a Scottish philosopher whose ideas soon made him an important star in the constellation of a movement called “The Scottish Enlightenment”. This movement had made a great impact directly and indirectly in gaining independence for the United States of America. The movement also helped in shaping the constitution of the country. Talking about his influence Bernard Bailyn wrote in his “Pamphlets of American Revolution, 1756-1777” that Hutcheson was a prominent figure of the 18^th century that the “colonists know and cited”. He believed in “absolute freedom of conscience and of public religious exercise”.

Jefferson’s professor, Dr. William Small, was a disciple of Hutcheson who taught his views on “virtue” and “liberty” to his students of William and Mary College, where Jefferson was a student. Jefferson wrote the following words about Dr. Small: “he…probably fixed the destines of my life”. Like Hutcheson, Jefferson believed in the freedom of religion. He wrote “it does me no injury for my neighbor to say that there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” He believed that there should be no compulsion in the matters of religion and that it must be tolerated.

In one of his works written in 1725, Francis Hutcheson wrote about the “Unalienable rights” which he believed were of great importance and which controlled all the governments and powers in their relationship with the individuals. This view greatly influenced Jefferson and provided him a solid and justified reason for the colonists to seek independence from the British. Jefferson’s views reflected Hutcheson’s philosophy who wrote:

“For whenever an invasion is made upon unalienable rights, there must arise either a perfect or extreme right to resistance…unalienable rights are essential limitations in all governments”.

The philosophy not only provided justification for the American Revolution but the words “unalienable rights” fit well with Jefferson’s notion of “inalienable rights”. At the same time Hutcheson’s ideas of “happiness” echo in the Declaration of Independence checklist which was appended “The Pursuit of Happiness”. Hutcheson disliked slavery and believed that freedom was the natural right of every man. Keeping these notions alive, Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence and stated “all men are created equal”.

Other Influences

The website of the Library of Congress (2006) gives a detailed account of other influences that helped Jefferson in drafting the Declaration of Independence.

Instructions to the Delegates from Virginia to the first Continental Congress written in 1774 by Jefferson

Jefferson drafted these instructions for the delegates from Virginia to be presented before the first Continental Congress. The instructions were considered too radical by the Congress. However, a friend of Jefferson published them in Williamsburg. The ideas presented in the instructions and its language played a major role in selecting Jefferson for drafting the Declaration.

Fairfax County Resolves, 1774

Fairfax County Resolves were written by George Mason and George Washington. The Resolves were adopted by the Fairfax County Convention which was chaired by George Washington. The Resolves were a clear protest against the British regarding their attitude towards Boston. Washington and Madison clearly stated that the constitutional rights were the fundamental rights of the British colonies. The Resolves demanded an end to trade with Britain and at the same time an end to the act of importing slaves. Keeping these points in mind Jefferson tried to include the condemnation of the British act of slave trading in the Declaration of Independence. His efforts were not successful in as far as the slave trading issue was concerned.

George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights

The Virginia Declaration of Rights was drafted by George Mason and Thomas Ludwell Lee. The Declaration was very influential and became instrumental in the movement for American Independence. This is one of the documents in which Thomas Jefferson greatly relied at the time of writing the Declaration of Independence. The Virginia Declaration of Rights became a parent to the Declaration of Independence, Virginia Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The language and principles of both documents by Mason and Jefferson are similar.

The Draft of the Constitution of Virginia

Jefferson had presented three drafts to the Continental Congress for the constitution of Virginia. The document was highly influential and helped Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence.

To conclude Jefferson explored the ideas of his predecessors to write the Declaration of Independence. His efforts proved fruitful when the Declaration of Independence came to be known as an important step for America towards freedom from the British rule.

References

“Declaration of Independence: Right to Institute New Government”, Library of Congress, (2006). Web.

McReynold, A. “The Legacy of Francis Hutcheson”, The Ulster-Scot, (2008). Web.

“The Philosophical Basis of Modern Racism”, (n.d.). Web.

Picture of Jefferson. Web.

The declaration of independence was written by Thomas Jefferson and was later adopted by the second continental congress and this declaration of independence illustrates the main reasons that pushed the colonies of the United Kingdom in North America to seek independence in 1776. This declaration starts with a description of why these colonies decided to depose their ruler and become independent nations. Then it goes ahead describing the rights of a citizen that any government should not violate and asserts that the people of these colonies decided to depose the tyrannical government because of its long history of abuses of human rights. The declaration also documents a list of specific human rights abuses that King George the third is guilty of, including interference with the hitherto fair judicial system and institution of legislation without seeking the consent of the people and this interference affected their lives. The colonial governments in North America had tried to negotiate with the central government in Britain urging it to respond to the concerns of the people but Britain did not heed these calls. Therefore, the declaration stated that the new country would be called the United States of America and would cut its ties with Great Britain.

Why is the declaration of independence important? It is very important because it has been an inspiration to a wide range of revolutionary efforts worldwide and has also made Americans understand their values as an independent republic. The preamble of this declaration is very vital because it connects practical politics and philosophical theory by expressing the central values of an independent nation and it also inspires other countries to accept the new republic. This introduction is founded on the politics and philosophy of the enlightenment period using ideas of thinkers such as Rousseau and Locke, who believed that human beings have a natural predisposition to protect their lives, health, liberty, and possessions. Jefferson’s declaration used the philosophy of John Locke and put it in real politics.

This introduction is important because it has enabled Americans to understand their rights and the phrase- all men were created equal- has become a central law in the United States of America, though it has not been explicitly stated in any of the official laws granted by the constitution of United States of America. This document does not have any legal authority in the United States of America though it is heavily cited because it is the foundation of equality in the United States of America. Whenever any group is agitating for equality in the United States of America cites the declaration of independence for support. However, there are some critics who point to the use of the world men in the declaration saying that it does not factor in gender equality.

Towards the end of the declaration, there is a list of abuses. The declaration pays attention to particular incidents that highlight the King’s disregard for liberty and the perils of the division on the issue of independence. It was able to convince the moderate voices in the second continental congress to vote for independence because reconciliation was not possible under the circumstances that were prevailing at that time.

The other section of this declaration is the conclusion which makes the identity of the new nation clear. Most of the delegates who were present in the second continental convention believed that the declaration is vital especially because it had an important message to other countries abroad. The conclusion identifies the independent country as the USA and also clarifies its authority.

The conclusion establishes the power of the SCC over issues concerning foreign policy, war, and peace and congress can use these powers to run governmental affairs that are related to a war that has been declared. However, the declaration describes itself as a conglomeration of colonies that are free and independent of each other and this is quite paradoxical because they cannot be free and independent when they are being run like one. The problems arise because of the notion that the colonies are united while it is implied that the states are independent and free. This inconsistency created a debate about the nature of the US government because it was hard to explain whether the United States was a loose confederation of states with each state pursuing its own interests or it was a strong nation with a central government with powers stronger than that of separate states. The other issue with the declaration is that it grants the separate states the power to make war and peace but fails to make provisions that explain how the war will be accounted for.

In conclusion, the famous wording of the declaration has for a long time been used to protect the rights of the citizens of the United States of America and marginalized sections of society. The declaration is now considered as a moral standard for which the people of America should strive and Abraham Lincoln used it as the basis of his political philosophy.

Introduction

Possibly no manuscript in record has undergone as much examination as the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America. In this official declaration, Thomas Jefferson wrote fundamentally of a novel theory of government, in which the government was expected to protect the “natural rights” of citizens.

In his Gettysburg Address of 1863, US President Abraham Lincoln concisely elucidate the vital significance of the Declaration to American history “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

In the United States, Independence Day (normally known as the Fourth of July) is a national public holiday to celebrate the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776 thereby declaring independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Ever since Thomas Jefferson has written the Declaration, several factions have inferred the document to connote diverse ideas, and repeatedly, the Declaration has been used to validate other political and societal activities. The Declaration is a significant historic document and includes several of America’s most fundamental beliefs.

The Declaration is considered as the original document of the United States of America, where July 4 is celebrated as Independence Day and the nation’s centenary.

It has been noted that Jefferson got several of his ideas for the preamble from the Virginia Declaration of Rights written by his associate George Mason and from his own draft preamble to the Virginia Constitution.

Jefferson noted that “all men are created equal ,” suggesting that this was “selfevident.”

Many conflicts and misconceptions may have stemmed from this statement.

Main body

Ever since 1776, nothing from the Declaration of Independence have attracted more interest than Jefferson’s expression, “All men are created equal.” However Jefferson and the other signers of the declaration could not probably believe this at a time when slavery existed in the colonies. For Jefferson who was an all-time possessor of slaves, this was a much more difficult problem.

It does seem to appear that Jefferson opposed slavery in principle but he saw no evident way to end it once it became customary. Jefferson rightfully apprehended that if the slaves were freed all at once, white chauvinism and black resentment would result in a war of extinction and that the whites would be triumphant. He fretted that if slaves were independently liberated they would have nowhere to go and no resources to stay alive on their own. Evidently, Jefferson and other Southern plantation owners were also economically reliant on slave labor.

Some may note that Jefferson made this statement as a slave owner and had no intention of granting citizenship status or equality to his black slaves. Others might speculate that Jefferson believed in a literal interpretation of this phrase and had no intention of granting equality or the right to vote to women. Also, some may note that some white men (if they were not property owners) did not have the right to vote.

At the time the American Constitution was formerly written, it symbolized the most gracious and most liberal political reflection of the most excellent intellect of that time. It stood as a visualization of idealistic optimism, a mechanism of honesty, and a representation of political constancy. The democratic system of 1776, in reality, only incorporated a small, fortunate section of the populace, the white, male, property proprietors, and not the myriad others, who comprise the America of today which includes full range of citizens of all classes, religious conviction, race, era, and genders.

The issues involved in this conflict are the decades of long struggle of African Americans for fair protection under the law and equal standing as citizens of the U.S. including the liberation, the abolition of Jim Crow laws, voting rights, school unification, and non-discrimination or confirmatory action legislation.

According to one more account of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and captivity of Civilians, Personal Justice was not given to Asian Americans, in the confinement centers where families lived in poor quality accommodation surroundings, had insufficient sustenance and health care, and had their sources of income ruined. Many of them continued to be ill psychologically, for very long after their liberation. The majority of the 110,000 people removed for reasons of ‘national security’ were young children, infants and adolescents who had not reached the voting age.

At present in America , Childhood, is considered as a holy time of life, for joy and loving, fostering interaction, for inspiration of astuteness, for study and the development of ambition, for the development and progress of personality. The United States as a nation, struggles with child education and didactic policy to exploit the potential of every child. But this was not the case in the early days of the country’s reality. In the earlier period, a child was a worker.

Whether it was on a farmhouse or in an industrial unit, the children of the working group in America labored, as quickly as they were able to, and for as long as they could. Children of refugee families, struggled hard to continue to exist in the poverty stricken circumstances of the eastern industrialized cities. They had to live in dirty, dim, packed, disease-ridden dwellings, and do whatever they could to earn a few additional cents to keep the family afloat monetarily. Socially aware persons were disgusted by the conditions which came to notice during the shared improvement era of the 1890s and started to insist for laws which would shelter young children. These and many other movements such as Voter’s rights, Women’s Movement took place in the United States which altered the course of history to a great extent.

The essay in issue would remain incomplete if the subject of slavery is not elaborated upon, the very reason for the debate. African Americans or black Americans are citizens or inhabitants of the United States who have genesis in any of the black ethnic groups of Africa. In the United States the term is commonly used for Americans with sub-Saharan African descent. Most African Americans are the offspring of imprisoned Africans who survived slavery in the United States, even though some are or have descended from voluntary refugees from Africa, the Caribbean, South America, or somewhere else.

Africans initially arrived in British North America

(future United States of America) in 1619 as slaves or servants. In the final decade of the nineteenth century in the United States, ethnically prejudiced laws and racial aggression intended at African Americans began to mushroom, which led to a movement to fight violence and discrimination against African Americans.

The Civil Rights Movement intended at eliminating public and private acts of racial discrimination against African Americans, particularly in the southern United States. By 1966, the Black Power movement emerged, which lasted from 1966 to 1975, elaborated upon the aims of the Civil Rights Movement to comprise ethnic decorum, monetary and political independence, and liberty from white influence.

The following gives the African American population and % of slavery in the U.S. over time, based on U.S. Census figures. (Numbers from years 1920 to 2000 are based on U.S. Census figures as given by the Time Almanac of 2005, p377).

By 1990, the African American population touched about 30 million and characterized the nation’s most prosperous province with an African American majority is Prince George’s County, Maryland, with a median income of $62,467. Other wealthy principally African American counties include Dekalb County In Georgia, and Charles City County in Virginia. Queens County, New York is the only county with a population of 65,000 or more where African Americans have a superior norm family income than European Americans.

Conclusion

Oprah Winfrey is the richest African American of the 20^th century and the world’s only black billionaire for three straight years.

To sum up, I would simply like to quote Martin Luther King Jr. who had a dream that one day “this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed — we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal”.

Introduction

When something is declared as self-evident, it is a statement of fact that ought to be accepted without question. This is how it, is inferred in the dictionary definition of the word “self-evident,” which means that there is no further need for proof or rationalization when a truth is established as self-evident. In the Declaration of Independence, certain human rights were designated as self-evident truths, suggesting that they are not to be questioned since these are man’s inalienable rights and are therefore sacred. The Declaration of Independence in fact expresses the traditional American philosophy that man’s basic rights being unalienable have a divine origin such that government is in no position to supplant, change or dilute their essence. As time marches on, however, perceptions increased that the values of the self-evident truths set in the Declaration of Independence have lost their ring of truth. According to Cushman (2006), for example, some moral truths cited in the Declaration have been rendered less self-evident by newly acquired psychological facts and sense of justice. This paper therefore aims to answer two questions related to the moral truths designated as self-evident in the Declaration of Independence:

1. What assumptions about our ethical knowledge apply to the Declaration?
2. Can these assumptions be defended by argumentation?

Declaration

Based on the historical notes gathered by Becker (1922), the Declaration of Independence was drafted by a committee appointed by the Continental Congress, which was composed of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman and Robert R. Livingstone. At the time it was written, the Union of 13 American colonies was still at war with the British Crown. For this reason, the Declaration had two parts, the first of which formulated the democratic political philosophy of the territory and the second part enumerated the grievances against Great Britain as the causes of the Revolution. Becker (1922) believed that the purpose of the document was more to proclaim to the world the reasons for declaring independence than to declare independence. As it happened, the founding fathers of the US led by Jefferson were so enamored by the English philosopher John Locke, such that the Declaration was patterned after Locke’s ideas on individual rights and the right of revolution, in essence, ideas and words (Becker, 1922). According to Riggs (undated online), Locke had expanded the principles of natural law that emphasized the theory that all humans are endowed by God or nature with certain basic human rights. These principles and assumptions became the bedrock of the new republic created out of the former British colonies, which was evident in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

The preamble to the Declaration of Independence reads:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident – that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. (Armitage, 2007)

According to Becker (1922), among man’s inalienable rights set in the Declaration as self-evident truths were the freedom of speech and expression, the right to religion and conscience, the right of assembly, the right to equal protection, and due process before the law. The other self-evident truths mentioned in the Declaration were the freedom from human bondage, gender inequality, and the right to vote. In those days, slavery was still rampant in the American colonies and women were still fighting for gender equality. Also, voting was a privilege exclusive to wealthy landowners to the exclusion of the rest of society, especially women. According to Armitage (2007), Jefferson denied women any position in his Cabinet even as he maintained slaves on his farm but he won his arguments for freedom and equality on the world stage by the pronouncement: “We hold these truths to be self-evident – that all men are created equal…” The Bill of Rights within the Declaration enumerated all these rights, including what governments cannot do to avoid impinging on these rights. For over two centuries hence, these tenets have served as guidance to the Americans as they made laws and ethical codes based on such principles (Riggs, undated).

Interpretations

The Declaration of Independence is as much an ethical creed as the UN Charter or the codes of ethics set for many professions. As such, it is subject to human error or miscalculation. In the words of Riggs (undated online), it is always possible that such a document can be formulated to reflect human carelessness or egoism although the formulators may be as well-intentioned as the Jefferson committee. Such shortcoming was expected to show through the passing of time and the coming of new generations. Thus, the question may be asked: Were the founding fathers led by Jefferson guilty of carelessness and egoism in drafting the Declaration? Dumbauld (1950) noted that the rights it enumerated were all worthwhile but the entitlement of so many rights tended to devalue the meaning of basic human rights. It also blurred the distinction between the rights that all individuals possess and the goals that everyone expects to attain. In this view, transforming every human aspiration into a right, as the Declaration did, invites the risk of cynicism and even disrespect for all human rights considerations in the end (Dumbauld, 1950).

Another interpretation of the Declaration of Independence deplores the lack of prominence given to the duty and responsibility that each right entails. Moral philosophy dictates that for every right, there is a correlative and inseparable duty and for every freedom or liberty granted to an individual, there is a responsibility (Pencake, 1990). In effect, man has both the duty to honor God as the giver of these rights as well as the responsibility to exercise these rights with due consideration to the rights of other human beings. It amounts to a balancing act that was never mentioned in the Declaration. There was also no reference in the Declaration about the possibility that man’s inalienable rights would be of little use to him if he fails to exercise his rights without respect for the rights of others. As George Washington later said: “Individuals entering society must give up a share of their liberty to preserve the (liberty of the) rest.” (Armitage, 2007) In creating governments, all individuals consent to some degree of limitation on their freedom to exercise some of these rights (Riggs, undated).

Perhaps the most scathing remark about the Declaration was the way it upheld the self-evident truth that “all men are created equal” and yet was ominously silent on the slave-holding that went on in the South when it was written. To some scholars, this alone was enough to make the Declaration a half-baked document on democratic political philosophy. Nonetheless, all the ethical principles enshrined by the Declaration quickly gained universal acceptance in such a way that the moral and ethical underpinnings of the document’s premises were taken as truth without a thorough discussion and clarification. According to Riggs (undated), such quick acceptance of an ethical proposition with grave import on a wide scale dilutes its essence and may make its success questionable. What the colonial government should have done was to conduct a nationwide plebiscite to invite divergent views on the content of the Declaration. Only when all the views from the cross-section of society were heard and incorporated in it can the document be ratified. This is the process acceptable today for proposed Constitutions and laws dealing with sensitive issues. Among the reasons why the values of the self-evident truths cited in the Declaration have lost their ring of truth are the people’s cultures and changing moral and ethical norms (Cushman, 2006). About the right to life, for example, euthanasia is a modern-day issue that the Declaration failed to consider. Some people favor euthanasia for hopeless patients if nature is allowed to take its course without medical interference. Others say it is downright wrong whatever methods are used, which means that it all depends on one’s moral perspectives. The laboratory experiments conducted by Cushman (2006) to illuminate this point showed that emotions play a central role in shaping our moral judgments. In effect, moral truths are less than self-evident since these are based on one’s psychological makeup and sense of justice. Thus, well-intentioned individuals sometimes do things that comply with their sense of justice but violate that of others. There is no help from the Declaration on how policymakers, legislators, the courts, and society should respond to this.

Another current issue related to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is abortion, which has baffled American policymakers for years. The Declaration says all citizens are born with rights, including the right to life or the right to be born, Pencake (1990) observed. Since the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed by the Declaration, it follows that a pregnant woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body, including the option to abort the pregnancy. If she goes through this route, she then harms another life, that of the human being in her womb. So if one believes in the right to be born, he must also believe in punishment if the right to life is abused. Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution another way such that it legalized abortion in the precedent-setting Roe v. Wade case (Pencake, 1990).

Discussion

The Declaration and its self-evident truths appear to have lost their relevance in the 21st century when the struggle for human rights acquires another dimension and different ramifications. According to Riggs (undated), the ethical principles set in the Declaration would seem irrelevant to someone fighting for human rights in this century as it concerns his livelihood and quality of life. The philosophy and ethics reflected in the Declaration are critical today when information technology has created the Global Village, where everyone has become acutely aware of what other people are doing. In exercising one’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” he should take care that he does not impose on the same rights of others (Pencake, 1990). For example, the world today is racked by violence and terrorism caused by political and ethnic differences while the environment is being stripped bare by greedy businesses that justify their actions by saying they are merely exercising their freedoms. Abuse of natural resources by businesses may be equated with the abuse of human rights. Business ethics dictates that companies provide meaningful employment through equal opportunities for advancement, occupational health and safety, and accommodation of the diversity of culture in the workplace. On these concerns, the state usually imposes regulations that amount to a code of ethics, which ensures that both management and employees conduct ethical behavior. Such a code, however, does not achieve its purposes for many reasons. For one, codes of ethics are often too general to be of specific value, such as those on fair employment. Also, the codes are rarely prioritized such that they do no resolve potential conflicts when a colleague is found acting contrary to company interests. Thus, the ethical behavior set by a code will only be effective if the code has been internalized and is truly believed by employees. These are the same deficiencies that can be observed in the Declaration: the ethical principles it established are too general to be of specific value; they are rarely prioritized, and they were never internalized in the sense that only a handful of men were involved in the drafting.

Ethical systems in the past as exemplified by the Declaration only identified the rights we have whereas the modern ethical systems specify not only these rights but also what is right and wrong, the duties that accompany those rights, what is right and wrong, and what can be demanded of us regardless of what we desire or seek. In effect, the notions of right, wrong, duty, and obligation become the core of modern ethical life. The need to make documents such as the Declaration of Independence relevant to the present was emphasized by Nelson Mandela when he spoke before the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. Riggs (online) quoted Mandela as saying:

” [Our youth are] bound to wonder why it should be that poverty still prevails in the greater part of the globe, that wars continue to rage and that many in positions of power and privilege pursue cold-hearted philosophies which terrifyingly proclaim, “I am not your brother’s keeper.” For no one in the north or the south can escape the cold fact that we are single humanity.”

The term ethics goes beyond moral beliefs and ethical theories and includes the study of standards for determining what behavior is good and bad or right and wrong. This definition is generally acceptable to most people since each one of us has our own concept of good or bad and right or wrong (Cushman, 2006). Perhaps the reason for a renewed discussion of the Declaration as an arbiter of people’s moral and ethical beliefs is that our concept of good or bad and right or wrong is not always the same. Each of us has our own perspective on these issues and in some cases that perspective is very different from person to person (Goree, 1996). For example, businesses and corporate cultures are also guided by perspectives that rise out of the member’s patterns of beliefs, orientations, values, and aspirations. Understanding the ethical orientation or ethical culture of the company is critical in determining appropriate responses in normal, day-to-day business activities and, even more compelling during times of crisis.

According to Goree (1996), ethics is the application of moral principles to make choices between right and wrong, and business ethics in particular is the application of those moral principles in the making of business decisions. Social responsibility, for its part, represents the positive actions or responses that a company takes to fulfill its responsibilities towards its stakeholders, to the environment and to society as a whole. In the view of economist Milton Friedman, however, there is one and only social responsibility of business: to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits. So when firms experience resource shortages as to threaten their very existence, they attack this problem by cheating on their social responsibility. For example, they may shirk off their responsibility of protecting the environment by acquiring cheap and unreliable anti-pollution devices. That way, the firms give the false impression that they comply with the rules. To address internal resource shortages, such as inadequate capacity and expertise, they overestimate costs, falsify training records, pay excessive compensation and give undeserved promotions. To address external shortages, such as lack of raw materials, they arrange unethical deals with suppliers or service providers (Goree, 1996).

Any discussion of the wisdom and validity of the Declaration brings us to the question about the integrity of the men that drafted its contents, which should come before the validity of any creed is accepted. Jefferson and the others must be shown to be genuinely upright and worthy of the positions that history gave them. There is no question that the writers of the Declaration were men of the highest intellect, but were they also ethically correct? As earlier noted, Jefferson would be found wanting in the ethics department because he himself maintained slaves and refused to appoint women in his Cabinet, which contrasted with the Declaration’s creed against human bondage and gender inequality. If this factor were established as measure together with the determination of the formulators’ validity within the contexts of today’s social, environmental and ethical realities, Jefferson and company would certainly fail. These are the reasons why the philosophical and ethical principle set for humanity in the last 6,000 years become relevant today. For example, the Declaration may have a credibility problem in that Jefferson and probably the others in the drafting committee were still keeping slaves in their homes when they wrote the document. Jefferson himself was quoted in history books as saying that the “country is not ready for women in the Cabinet and neither am I,” which made the declaration on gender equality seemed hollow (Armitage, 2007).

It is a fact that Jefferson adopted the ideas of John Locke in writing the Declaration that says “all men are created equal,” which suggests that the conditions that obtained in Britain during Locke’s time may be different from those during Jefferson’s time in America. According to another early philosopher, Matthias Knutzen, it was possible to formulate a code of ethics to guide human activities without invoking the concept of God. In so doing, we are likely to love our enemies unconditionally according to the holy teaching, and thus violate the unspoken principle in the Declaration that we should exercise our rights but at the same time respect the rights of others (Goree, 1996).

Ethical Issues

Ethics is the study of questions of morality and the search to understand what is right, wrong, good, and bad. Goree (1996) defines ethics as the branch of philosophy that systematically studies moral ideals and goals, motives of choice, and patterns of good and bad conduct. Thus, ethics and morality are often used interchangeably, such that morality has evolved to mean the social norms that people are taught and conditioned to follow, while ethics has come to refer to the rational questioning and examination of these norms (Goree, 1996). This view of ethics is believed to be the most ideal way, since it assumes the existence of moral standards and principles that are universal in application (Ibid). The study and application of ethics should be a concern of everybody and should not be limited to a few men like Jefferson and Franklin, no matter how intelligent and ethical they were. Theologians study ethics and morality in light of religious teachings and divine commands, while psychologists seek to understand how people’s values influence their thinking, behavioral motivations, and personal development. Sociologists, on the other hand, attempt to identify and explain varying cultural norms and practices, while business educators try to help companies, employees, and professionals avoid expensive and counterproductive acts that violate ethical norms. However, the study of normative ethics has historically been dominated by philosophers, who have applied rules of reason and logic to find answers to humanity’s perplexing moral and ethical questions (Cushman, 2006).

According to Goree (1996), these classical ethical systems are expressed and affirmed in contemporary society in many ways, with codes of ethics as the best examples. A code of ethics is a written document intended to serve as guideline to those who would follow it. Most large businesses and corporations have codes of ethics for their employees, as do most professions for their members. Professional codes are usually written by members of the profession through a central national organization. For example, it is generally understood that American doctors are subject to the American Medical Association code of ethics, and American lawyers follow their bar association codes. Many other professions have codes of ethics as well, including such diverse fields as journalism, pharmacy, business management, education, accounting, engineering, nursing, law enforcement, and psychology. However, even the best codes of ethics cannot guarantee ethical behavior. Indeed, many codes do not even contain methods of enforcement, but merely express the ideals and values of their respective corporations and professions. The decision to act ethically or unethically is, as it has been through the ages, up to the individual. Conspicuously absent from the Declaration is the principle on what should be done if man violates the rights of others. As we have noted, individuals well-intentioned though they may be sometimes perform acts that conform with their sense of ethics and justice but effectively violate the rights of others. How should policy makers and society respond to this? (Goree, 1996)

Riggs (online) cites the need to ask probing questions on the use of ethics for some aspects of governance before a public policy is drawn that affects man’s rights: “What are human rights and how do we define or determine them? Do animals have rights, too? Is getting an abortion or euthanasia immoral? Is affirmative action right or wrong? A more specific activity could be deciding when it is moral for an individual to sacrifice his rights if this would make someone else raise his standards of living. Without first settling these questions, there is no clear fulcrum on which to balance law, politics, and the practice of arbitration.”

Conclusion

The basic assumption of the Declaration of Independence is that all human beings are endowed by nature with certain basic rights. This gives people a moral duty to respect the rights of others, such that violating the rights of others becomes a moral wrong while allowing others to enjoy the same rights is ethically permissible. This principle is enshrined in the Declaration, the American Constitution and its legal system. On the right to life, for example, euthanasia is a modern-day issue that the Declaration failed to consider. Some people favor euthanasia for hopeless patients if it lets nature take its course without medical interference. Others say it is downright wrong whatever methods are used, which means that it all depends on one’s moral perspectives.

Another issue that the Declaration failed to address concerning the right to life is abortion. If the right to life is a self-evident truth, it follows that a pregnant woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body, including the option to abort the pregnancy. If she goes through this route, she then harms another life, that of the human being in her womb. So if one believes in the right to be born, he must also believe in punishment if the right to life is abused. Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court interpreted the Declaration and Constitution differently.

Works Cited

1. Armitage, David. The Declaration of Independence: A Global History. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
2. Becker, Carl Lotus. The Declaration of Independence: A Study on the History of Political Ideas. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1922.
3. Cushman, Fiery. The Declaration of Independence: A Lab Report. Harvard University, 2006.
4. Dumbauld, Edward. The Declaration of Independence and What it Means Today. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1950.
5. Goree, K. Ethics in American Life. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western ITP, 1996.
6. Pencake, William. The Declaration of Independence: Changing Interpretations and a New Hypothesis. Pennsylvania History 57, No. 3, 1990.
7. Riggs, G. Discussions on the History of Conscience and Ethics.