Replies

FreedomFlynnie, it's really no different than Jefferson elevating his "personal political opinions" to "absolute truths" in the Declaration of Independence.

Maybe you folks who disagree with the article can explain why the idea of self-evident truth is acceptable in the Declaration of Independence on mixed political/moral issues (e.g., all men are created equal), but not on matters such as whether homosexuality is wrong.

FreedomFlynnie, it's really no different than Jefferson elevating his "personal political opinions" to "absolute truths" in the Declaration of Independence.

Nah. When Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." he was most likely referring to the idea that the Founding Fathers all understood the moral basis of those truths, so expounding on that basis would be unnecessary for a concise Declaration of Independence. The other possibility is that he was a bad debater, but I think we can agree that's not true.

Maybe you folks who disagree with the article can explain why the idea of self-evident truth is acceptable in the Declaration of Independence on mixed political/moral issues (e.g., all men are created equal), but not on matters such as whether homosexuality is wrong.

Sure. You can't have a rational system of morality without the idea that all men are created equal (if you don't believe me, try to define one). Based on that truth, which isn't so much self-evident as it is the only possible conclusion of a logical moral system, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness naturally and rationally devolve. It's not that "self-evident" was the rational basis for those truths, it's just that Jefferson assumed readers of the Declaration would either understand or not care about the underlying logic, making a complete explanation unnecessary.

IMHO, the key word in the DoI is “We.” This is the colonies “we” telling the Throne (implied “You”) that what follows is our list of values and truths. It’s assumed that the Throne doesn’t hold the same truths to be self-evident, given some unnamed grievances that make the actual putting a list of truths to paper necessary in the first place.

Moreover, we’re prepared to kill “you” if you do not allow us to practice these truths - or if “you” do not stop violating our rights as described.

Looking at one particularly divisive issue today where people on both sides claim some level of self-evidence in their positions, abortion:

The power in the DoI’s self-evidence argument is that the DoI is the wronged speaking directly to the wronger. Babies in wombs lack the ability to defend themselves in such a way, and the argument loses its punch when the victim’s only voice is a bunch of 3rd-party advocates.

The best analogy for abortion is to slavery, and vice-versa. Most slaves also lacked the ability to construct arguments on their behalf - one reason no doubt why folks back then were so much against allowing black people to become educated - and the whole issue required bitter, bloody a war and a stubborn leader who was willing to go to questionable (legally) lengths on their behalf in order to make slavery illegal, while simulatenously accomplishing some other goals he also deemed worthy, such as keeping the States united - such as it is.

Lincoln’s reasoning for making slavery illegal? Again, an appeal to self-evidence...”If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong.”