Originally posted by Red NightBosse sorta beat me to it with his last post, but you should read the Nichomachean Ethics by Aristotle, if you have not done so thus far.
The items you mention are substitutes for happiness.
In many ways so are video games and internet chat rooms.
No one ever found happiness in a bottle or on an Xbox.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by Red NightI for one don't think it is self evident that rights were given by a creator, naturally because I don't believe in such a thing...and I suppose only even inalienable in the sense of a strong moral but subjective core created by the vast majority in society, that nevertheless could change over time.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 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 fo ...[text shortened]... nt becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it...
Originally posted by Bosse de NageJohn Locke talks about the essential duties of government as being "life, liberty, and the protection of property"
It all crumbles with the 'self-evident'. 'We hold' means 'we are putting this on you'. That document is an expression of eighteenth-century will-to-power that has become a quasi-religious relic.
Why not simply say 'this constitution is governed by the principle of eudaimonia'?
I think Jefferson was influenced by aristotle when he co-opted this idea and altered it to the "pursuit of happiness"
In modern terms I think it remains "self-evident" that these powers derive from the "consent of the governed"
Still some of the most stirring words ever written, IMO.
Originally posted by Starrman"To judge from the lives that men lead, most men, and men of the most vulgar type, seem (not without some ground) to identify the good, or happiness, with pleasure; which is the reason why they love the life of enjoyment."
Bosse sorta beat me to it with his last post, but you should read the Nichomachean Ethics by Aristotle, if you have not done so thus far.
It's been awhile.
Originally posted by Bad wolfone can substitue "brotherhood of man" for "creator" without losing the essential meaning.
I for one don't think it is self evident that rights were given by a creator, naturally because I don't believe in such a thing...and I suppose only even inalienable in the sense of a strong moral but subjective core created by the vast majority in society, that nevertheless could change over time.
Reference to God or a creator in an ethical text does not render the ethical portion of the text moot.
Creator is an extremely weak reference to God, by the way.
Originally posted by Red Night"... why they love the life of enjoyment" and much prefer/yearn for 'freedom' over bondage. Slavery frustrates individual self determination.
"To judge from the lives that men lead, most men, and men of the most vulgar type, seem (not without some ground) to identify the good, or happiness, with pleasure; which is the reason why they love the life of enjoyment."
It's been awhile.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by Red NightI was aware that creator means God, but I suppose "brotherhood of man" could be used as some sort of analogy, as un-pc it is, for society.
one can substitue "brotherhood of man" for "creator" without losing the essential meaning.
Reference to God or a creator in an ethical text does not render the ethical portion of the text moot.
Creator is an extremely weak reference to God, by the way.
Originally posted by Bad wolfyour disbelief is of no consequence...now bow down fool!😠
I for one don't think it is self evident that rights were given by a creator, naturally because I don't believe in such a thing...and I suppose only even inalienable in the sense of a strong moral but subjective core created by the vast majority in society, that nevertheless could change over time.