Question

1. When Jefferson says that "we hold these truths to be self-evident", what does he mean by 'self-evident'? He does not mean "obvious". (Hint: calculus is also "self-evident" in the same sense.)

2. Why do you enjoy ethics ?

3. Why, according to Paine, do governments exist?

Answer 1

a Declaration by the Represent OF AMERICA, In Central com when in the counse of human dissolve the political bands which have . When Jefferson says that "we hold these truths to be self-evident", what does he mean by 'self-evident'? He does not mean "obvious". (Hint: calculus is also "self-evident" in the same sense.) Thomas Jefferson considered the Declaration of Independence his greatest achievement. It marked the beginning of self-government in America, kindling a flame that he believed would eventually light the world. But the Declaration was a personal achievement for Jefferson as well, a masterpiece of eloquence that still inspires us today. Near the end of his life, Jefferson explained his goal in writing the Declaration of Independence: Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent... Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular or previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. It is the "tone and spirit" of Jefferson's writing that make the Declaration of Independence something more than a statement of political principles. To see this, compare Jefferson's words to those of another Virginian, George Mason, whose "Declaration of Rights" was adopted by the Virginia assembly on June 12, 1776, while Jefferson was still working on his first draft. George Mason Declaration of Rights All men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. Thomas Jefferson Declaration of IndependenceWe 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... The ideas in the two passages are almost identical, and may even be more clearly explained by George Mason. But in Jefferson's hands these ideas become charged with the "tone and spirit" of conviction. Instead of setting down political facts, he affirms eternal truths about humanity. Instead of spelling things out, he makes us feel that more remains to be said. Jefferson's draft of the Declaration shows that he worked hard to give this passage its distinctive style. Mark the changes he made on the transcript shown below, then compare Jefferson's draft with the passage by George Mason and with his own final choice of words. Thomas Jefferson Draft of the Declaration of Independence We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent; that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable; that among these are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; What differences do you notice among these nearly parallel expressions of our most basic political beliefs? What do these differences reveal about Jefferson's mind and character? 2. Why do you enjoy ethics ? Ethics is a system of principles that helps us tell right from wrong, good from bad. Ethics can give real and practical guidance to our lives. Ethical values (i.e. honesty, trustworthiness, responsibility) help guide us along a pathway to deal more effectively with ethical dilemmas by eliminating those behaviors that do not conform to our sense of right and wrong – our best rational interests – without sacrificing others. Ethics is all about the choices we make. We constantly face choices that affect the quality of our lives. We are aware that the choices that we make have consequences, both for ourselves and others. We are aware of the responsibility we have for our actions. Let’s assume you have discovered through a reliable third party that your best friend is cheating on his wife. Your wife asks whether you know anything about it after seeing your friend with another woman at a restaurant. Would you: Confide in her that the cheating is going on. Deny you know anything about it. Tell her your friend hasn’t said anything to you about it. Honesty requires that you tell your wife that a reliable third party informed you of the cheating. You may think it is best to say that you have no direct knowledge of the cheating, which is technically correct, but it’s a lie by omission. Denying you know anything about it is an outright lie – a lie by commission. Your primary responsibility is to the truth. You may rationalize saying nothing out of loyalty to your friend. However, loyalty is generally a secondary value to honesty. If it were not, then one could rationalize doing something wrong or failing to act out in the right way out of loyalty to another party. Why do some people lack ethics? One thought is they have “blind spots” where ethics is concerned. Max Bazerman and Ann Trebrunsel describe blind spots as the gaps between who you want to be and the person you are. In other words, most of us want to do the right thing but internal and external pressures get in the way. Let’s assume we approached our best friend about the cheating. He may swear us to secrecy and remind us of a past situation where he was loyal to our interests above all else. We want to be an honest person, but don’t want to get our friend in trouble. A classic ethical dilemma ensues. Ethics is about character -- the sum of qualities that defines a person. These qualities include a person’s intellect, thoughts, ideas, motives, intentions, temperament, judgment, behavior, imagination, perception, emotions, loves, and hates. In virtue ethics, character is all about what a well-intentioned person with good character would do. Character counts, as the saying goes, and it is the sum of who we are. What we stand for. Virtue ethicists place less emphasis on learning philosophical rules and instead stress the importance of developing good habits of character – dispositions to do the right thing in the right place at the right time in the right way. Cardinal virtues are wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. These virtues inform ethical decision making because they provide a foundation to make good judgments when faced with an ethical dilemma. We need to be ethical because it defines who we are individually and as a society. These are norms of behavior that everyone should follow. Our society might fall into chaos if we accept that each of us could pick and choose what the right thing to do is. Some people may lie; others may not do what they say they will do; still others act irresponsibly and engage in harmful behavior. There is nothing wrong with pursuing one’s own interests. However, an ethical person must be willing – at least sometimes – to place the interests of others ahead of self-interest, because of our responsibility to a civil society. This is the moral point of view. Derrick A. Bell  said in Ethical Ambition: Living a Life of Meaning and Worth: “Courage is a decision you make to act in a way that works through your own fear for the greater good as opposed to pure self-interest. Courage means putting at risk your immediate self-interest for what you believe is right.” 3..why according to Paine do government ? Paine answers this question in a brief discussion of the difference between "society" and "government." He views society as the consequence of human interactions, both economic and emotional, each carried out with the aim of satisfying human wants and needs. Society is healthy, natural, and, he says, "in every state a blessing." Government, on the other hand, is always a "necessary evil," according to Paine. Paine’s attack on monarchy in Common Sense is essentially an attack on George III. Whereas colonial resentments were originally directed primarily against the king’s ministers and Parliament, Paine lays the responsibility firmly at the king’s door. And he appeals to a sense among Americans that they have all the resources, and every claim, to rule themselves without the interference and control of a body half-way around the world. Subverting paternalist metaphors for Britain’s colonial claims, Paine creates an image of a nation come of age, ready for freedom from its leading strings, having every justification for separation from its unnatural parent, and seeking to stand on its own as a commercial republic, trading in its own right. It is not America who is behaving unnaturally and ungratefully, but the ‘royal brute of Great Britain.’ ‘Nature has deserted the connection, and art cannot supply her place’ (CW I, 23). Americans do not see the way forward, but it is simple. The colonies need to be divided into districts, districts should elect their representatives to Congress, and Congress should choose a President by ballot from the delegates of each state in turn, with the first state being chosen by lot. To avoid injustice, three fifths should be required for a majority. To avoid imposing his views, however, he suggests that each state nominate two members to a Continental Congress to frame a charter fixing the details of the government—‘always remembering that our strength is continental, not provincial’ (CW I, 29). And in a rare citation of another’s works, Paine appeals to Dragonetti’s adage that the aim should be ‘a mode of government that should combine the greatest sum of individual happiness with the least national expense’ (CW I, 29). For all its success, Common Sense is not without flaws. It contains a digression on biblical accounts of the origin of monarchy; its powerful rhetoric leaves unanswered a range of more practical and theoretical questions, and the argument jumps around considerably. Later editions added an appendix denouncing the Quakers for their quietism. But its rhetorical effectiveness cannot be doubted—which suggests that it intersected powerfully with the concerns and beliefs that were widespread in colonial America at the point of rupture. Political theorists might want to press for more details about who will have the vote; about whether there is an implicit acceptance of a doctrine of the fall; about the extent to which his appeals to republics envisage a degree of republican civic virtue; about whether the argument is based on an account of natural rights; and so on. But on such issues the pamphlet is either silent or only barely suggestive. Unlike Locke, this is not a principled justification for resistance, so much as a concatenation of points about Americans taking their collective identity and independent interests seriously and separating from the increasingly arbitrary rule of Britain. Given these sweeping claims, it is easy to see why so many commentators have held that Paine was both lacking in intellectual sophistication and basically held to a consistent set of principles throughout his work, since it is difficult to demonstrate that much he says is actively inconsistent with what he later wrote. Nonetheless, if we take increasing precision in his claims as evidence of greater attention to issues that he felt he could confidently sweep past in Common Sense, then a case for a deepening of his thinking and for a process of change over time can be made.