Self-Evident Truths

Most of us know this line from our Declaration of Independence:

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.

There are other "self-evident" truths in the document. There is the assumption that government is derived "from the consent of the governed" and that a government that fails to regard all men as equal and derive its power from the governed may be justly altered or abolished. Mentioned only in passing, but implied in the text is also the "self-evident" assumption of a Creator upon whom "certain unalienable rights" are based. No Creator - no endowed rights.

It is my suspicion that, were this document to be written today, the self-evident truths -- the basic assumptions of the document -- would be radically different. Indeed, I'm not at all sure such a document could be produced today, given the that which is considered self-evident today.

First, the concept of "self-evident truth" would be in question. "What do you mean by 'self-evident'? Truth is relative, you know. What may be true for me may not be true for you. Be careful, my friend, when you try to suggest some sort of universal, absolute, self-evident truth."

The existence of a Creator is not self-evident as indicated by His being banned from government as well as schools, public displays, parks, the public arena in general. Having stripped off the Creator, it is not possible that "all men are created equal" since all men are not created. And we have it on good authority that certain human beings are less valuable than other human beings by the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling.

Clearly, "certain unalienable rights" are also no longer self-evident since no Creator has endowed them. I think people would still be pretty sure that it is self-evident that the government is to derive its power from the governed, but that's purely relative. What does the governed want today? Is it rational, reasonable, contradictory, sane? Irrelevant. You see, another self-evident fact is that people ought to have the right to do whatever they please. Is it rational, reasonable, contradictory, sane? Again, irrelevant. Of course, deriving its power from the governed, even this right can easily be contravened by the government. Do the governed want to arrest those who disagree with your right to do whatever you please? They can do that. At that point the government derives its powers from the loudest governed. For most of us, pursuit of my happiness and indulgence without restraint of my liberty is certainly an unalienable right endowed by ... well, me!

Self-evident statements about self-evident truths concerning self-evident rights are no more reasonable today than the concept of "common courtesy". Courtesy is no longer common, and truths are no longer self-evident. Now, rights are certainly in vogue, but we've forgotten that no right is absolute. In the most obvious form, "your rights end where my nose begins." All rights are limited. So the effort of morality and its consequent laws is spent on drawing the lines for those rights -- here and no further. It's actually in where we're drawing the lines that most of the problems come. But don't let anyone tell you that truths are self-evident or that rights are unlimited. You'd be walking on shaky ground.