Philosophically Correct Declaration Of Independence Answer Key

A Philosophically Correct Declaration of Independence: An In-Depth Examination

The United States Declaration of Independence, a cornerstone of American identity and a touchstone for revolutionary movements globally, presents a complex philosophical tapestry. While its powerful rhetoric ignited a nation, a deeper examination reveals both its strengths and inherent limitations within the framework of philosophical thought. This essay will delve into a "philosophically correct" interpretation, analyzing its core tenets through the lens of various philosophical schools, identifying its shortcomings, and proposing amendments for a more robust and inclusive declaration.

I. Natural Rights and the Social Contract:

The Declaration's most significant philosophical contribution rests on its articulation of natural rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—and its implicit endorsement of a social contract theory. John Locke's influence is undeniable. Locke argued that individuals possess inherent rights preceding government, rights that no sovereign can legitimately infringe upon. The Declaration echoes this sentiment, claiming that these rights are "endowed by their Creator." This theological framing, while crucial to its historical context, has been subject to ongoing debate, with secular interpretations focusing on inherent human dignity as the basis for these rights.

A. The Problem of "Creator":

The reference to a "Creator" immediately introduces a significant philosophical challenge. The Declaration's universal claim to natural rights becomes problematic when viewed through a secular lens. Not everyone shares a belief in a creator, and basing fundamental rights on a specific theological perspective excludes individuals who adhere to different belief systems or are non-believers altogether. A "philosophically correct" Declaration would need to reframe these rights as inherent to human existence, grounded in reason and human dignity, rather than divine mandate.

B. The Social Contract Revisited:

The Declaration implies a social contract, where individuals voluntarily surrender certain freedoms to form a government that protects their remaining rights. However, the original document is silent on the specifics of this contract—how it’s formed, how it can be amended or dissolved, and the mechanism for holding the government accountable. A robust social contract theory demands explicit mechanisms for participation, redress of grievances, and the peaceful transition of power. This is a key area needing expansion for a "philosophically correct" Declaration.

II. Equality and its Limitations:

The Declaration proclaims that "all men are created equal." However, the historical context reveals a glaring contradiction: the institution of slavery blatantly negated this principle. This hypocrisy underscores a critical philosophical flaw. A truly philosophically correct Declaration must address the inherent inequalities of race, gender, class, and other societal divisions.

A. Expanding the Definition of "Equality":

"Equality" cannot be interpreted solely as political equality. True equality necessitates equal opportunity, access to resources, and social justice. A revised Declaration would explicitly acknowledge the historical and ongoing struggles for equality and commit to actively addressing systemic inequalities that undermine the principle of equal opportunity. This necessitates incorporating principles of distributive justice, ensuring that resources and opportunities are fairly distributed, not merely in theory but in practice.

B. Inclusion and Representation:

The original Declaration explicitly excluded enslaved people and women from its definition of "men." A "philosophically correct" Declaration must acknowledge this exclusion and actively embrace inclusivity. This demands the inclusion of all individuals, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary classification. Furthermore, it necessitates mechanisms for ensuring equal representation and participation in the political process.

III. The Right to Revolution:

The Declaration asserts the right to alter or abolish a government that becomes destructive of the people's rights. This articulation of the right to revolution introduces another crucial philosophical discussion.

A. Justifying Revolution:

The right to revolution is not a license for anarchy or impulsive action. A "philosophically correct" framework must establish rigorous criteria for justifying revolution. These criteria might include prolonged oppression, systematic denial of rights, and a failure of all peaceful means of redress. Moreover, a commitment to peaceful transitions and minimal harm should be paramount.

B. The Responsibility of Citizens:

The right to revolution should be complemented by a clear articulation of the responsibilities of citizens within a democratic society. This involves actively participating in the political process, upholding the rule of law, and promoting social justice. A responsible citizenry is essential to prevent the abuse of the right to revolution and maintain a stable and just society.

IV. The Pursuit of Happiness:

The "pursuit of happiness" is often misinterpreted as a purely individualistic goal. However, a more nuanced philosophical understanding considers happiness as intricately tied to communal well-being.

A. Happiness as a Collective Endeavor:

A "philosophically correct" Declaration would emphasize the interconnectedness of individual happiness with societal prosperity. This necessitates a commitment to social programs, environmental sustainability, and global cooperation, recognizing that individual well-being is deeply intertwined with the well-being of the community and the planet.

B. Defining "Happiness":

The concept of happiness is inherently subjective, yet a philosophical analysis of this phrase should guide us to focus on the well-being of every individual as a prerequisite for a just society. This entails not just access to material goods, but also opportunities for self-actualization, social inclusion, and access to healthcare, education and other essential services.

V. A Philosophically Correct Re-imagining:

A truly "philosophically correct" Declaration of Independence would necessitate significant revisions. Here’s a proposed framework for a re-imagined declaration:

1. Affirmation of Inherent Human Dignity: The document would begin by declaring that all individuals possess inherent dignity and equal moral worth, irrespective of any particular belief system or characteristic.

2. Universal Rights: It would delineate fundamental rights – including life, liberty, security, equality, and the pursuit of well-being – grounded in reason and human dignity, rather than a specific theological framework.

3. Social Contract with Explicit Mechanisms: The Declaration would establish a robust social contract, clearly outlining the responsibilities of both the government and the citizenry, incorporating mechanisms for participation, accountability, and peaceful transitions of power.

4. Commitment to Equality and Social Justice: It would explicitly address historical and ongoing inequalities, committing to actively promoting social justice, equity, and the eradication of all forms of discrimination and oppression.

5. Right to Revolution with Defined Criteria: The right to revolution would be retained, but with clearly defined criteria for its justifiable exercise, emphasizing peaceful means of redress and a commitment to minimal harm.

6. Collective Pursuit of Well-being: The “pursuit of happiness” would be re-framed as a collective pursuit of well-being, encompassing not just individual fulfillment, but also social justice, environmental sustainability, and global cooperation.

7. Recognition of Interconnectedness: The Declaration should acknowledge the interconnectedness of individual well-being with social justice and planetary health.

8. Mechanism for Amendment and Review: The Declaration must be a living document, recognizing the need for ongoing evolution and improvement, including clear mechanisms for amending and reviewing its principles and provisions.

Conclusion:

The United States Declaration of Independence serves as a potent symbol of revolutionary ideals. However, a critical philosophical analysis reveals significant shortcomings, particularly concerning its limitations on equality, its reliance on a specific theological framework, and the absence of clear mechanisms for a robust social contract. A "philosophically correct" Declaration necessitates a comprehensive re-evaluation and re-writing, incorporating principles of inclusivity, social justice, and a deeper understanding of human rights, grounded in reason and human dignity. By acknowledging and rectifying its historical limitations, we can craft a more robust and ethically sound declaration, one that truly reflects the aspirations of a just and equitable society for all. This re-imagined Declaration would not merely be a historical document; it would be a living testament to humanity's ongoing pursuit of a more perfect union, guided by reason, compassion, and a commitment to the inalienable rights of all.