All Men Are Not Created Equal, or Why Thomas Jefferson Got it Wrong - Stand for America®
Gregg Zegarelli Esq.
Managing Shareholder at Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group, PC
At John F. Kennedy’s dinner honoring Nobel Prize winners, JFK remarked:
I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.
Thomas Jefferson was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. He was an extraordinary man, like many of the Founding Fathers.
There was no Facebook and Twitter in the Age of Enlightenment. Indeed, in those days, the time spent with book learning was based upon the liberal arts classics of history, science, philosophy and literature, including, of course, the most widely read book of all time, The King James Bible.
A man in those days tended to be combination of philosopher, business owner, farmer and soldier, by life necessity. In result, men of sufficient means tended to be balanced human beings, and, from this broad foundation of learning and experience, sprang a font of wisdom.
The Declaration of Independence is a great literary work, and one of the formative documents of the United States, but, we must remember its purpose. The Declaration of Independence was not a document of governance of men, such as the U.S. Constitution, but rather a document of rhetoric and declared rebellion, directed to King George, III, who believed that his authority was derived from a Christian god.
Many people believe that the Declaration of Independence referenced a Christian god, but clever separation-of-church-and-state Jefferson (who believed neither in Jesus' divinity nor the Trinity) referenced only the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," "the Creator" and "Divine Providence."
One the most referenced lines from the Declaration is "all men are created equal,...endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life"; to wit:
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.
It is that part about it being self-evident that should throw us off a bit, particularly in light of the statement about being created equal and the right to life. The more precise issue is: a) whether these rights are granted by the Creator and then perfected by consent; or b) whether these rights are not granted by the Creator, but are granted alone by the consent of man.
Let us take one thing at a time, first nature then law.
The first question is whether actual things are created equal in nature, as an objective fact of reality. It does not really matter if the question is posed to a theist or an atheist. At the point of being created, is any one thing the equal to another? Is 7'4" Andre the Giant the natural equal to 2'11" General Tom Thumb? Are all natural gifts to one thing equal to the natural gifts of any other thing? Nature's God does not even make two snowflakes or two lowly fingerprints equal.
We should admit that no two specific actually existing things are equal in nature—that is, as specific particular existing things. No existing man is the equal of any other existing man.
You will note that I avoided saying "Is one human being equal to another?" The reason is because nature does not classify things as such. Existing things have natural rules of attraction and aversion, but classifications, such as that term is used, is a human construct, even of how the term "human being" is defined. In the state of nature, animals do not operate with such contrived stated definitions. Animals are not trying to be equal, they are trying to survive.
Whether any two things are equal to each other in nature is one question, but then we have the question of equality, not as actual things, but equals as classified. Therefore, two existing particular men may not be equal in size, strength and intelligence, but may be equally classified as men.
Classification equality is different than equality per se.
At what point something is classified equal to another thing, for purposes of that classification, is a matter of taxonomy hierarchy and granularity; e.g., a man is not equal to a woman classified at the level of reproductive organs, but a man classified as a human being is equal to a woman classified as a human being. A dog is a mammal and so are human beings mammals, but a dog is not a human being. A Poodle is a dog and so is a German Shepherd, but a Poodle is not the equal of a German Shepherd in nature, nor is this particular existing Poodle equal to that particular existing Poodle in nature.
Whether one thing is "better" than the thing to which it is compared is a function of specific relevant context and purpose. No one should be offended by this truth of fact.
So, when we use the term "equality," we have to be very careful in generalized conclusions. Is this particular woman a particular man's equal in nature? If they are different in nature, then how can they be equal in nature? A man is not a woman, by our definition. No existing woman is the equal of any other existing woman, and no woman, classified as such, is the equivalent to a man, classified as such.
Now, we cannot let some baggage of social and legal prejudice affect the interpretation of that statement. One was not stated to be "better" than the other, but only how could it be that things that are different in nature also could be equal in nature.
It seems foolish to argue that different things are the same things, for the same reason as the inverse logic of Euclid's First Common Notion. A fork is not the spoon's equal, and a fork is not superior to a spoon in the abstract. For steak, a fork—for soup, a spoon.
Confusion occurs when speaking of equality, because the term may mean equal in nature, or equal in classification, or equal in law, or equal before God [or gods, etc]. Rhetoric loves to confuse terms and meanings.
Does a man have the self-evident natural "right" of equality in nature?
We really should not think so, because it dysfunctionally denies a truth:
In fact, the state of nature abhors equality.
Species survive by the variations that permit evolution and adaption. Nature abhors duplicates, because it is exactly the differences in things that hedge Mother Nature's bet for specie survival.
Recommended by LinkedIn
But, back to Thomas Jefferson.
Stating the truth about equality was a problem for Thomas Jefferson's Declaration. To say, "All men are created equal at law" is ineffective, and certainly less rhetorically declarative. A qualification of the source of equality to be "at law" begs the question and really does not work for a king who makes the law according to his own will.
Indeed, King George was the law, so Jefferson had to get around the premise of contradiction. And, by using deist type of references to god (e.g, "Nature's God"), Jefferson obliquely also denied King George's authority to argue for the intention or purpose of the King's own Christian god.
That is, Jefferson rhetorically asserted that: a) King George is not the source of human rights, god is; and b) that god is not necessarily the King's Christian god (ala, "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," "the Creator" and "Divine Providence").
So, what "rights," if any, does nature or Nature's God, give?
Does a man, alone in a jungle, have "rights" while the tiger has the man's head in the tiger's mouth? Will God's [or god's or nature's] tiger respect the man's right to live because the man quotes God [or god], a bible, or a philosophical treatise? No.
In the state of nature, the tiger—not knowing anything about rights—eats the man, taking the man's life, which is exactly nature's law. And, in nature, there is no hope, permission, forgiveness, or regret. Nature's God's law is a brutal construct that could care less about rights.
Therefore, rights of man within any society grouping are entirely social constructs of that society imposed by force or negotiated by consent. A right is a "legal defense" by construct, and there is no mosquito—that greatest killer in the world—that cares about rights to life, it simply wants to live at the cost of its host. Equal rights are thereby derivatively also social constructs.
The law is not intended to make people equal in nature, because the law is incompetent to do so. The law simply cannot, in fact, give me the talent to play basketball like Michael Jordan. Moreover, to have done so would have gained a basketball player and lost an attorney. Nature loves diversity and abhors equality. Man may desire equality, but nature loves unique diversity.
The law is to make the rules of the social game equal so that people are equal before the law, with a fair chance to pursue happiness, at least pursuant to the standard that comports with the national principles of our group association as Americans.
Equality does not exist in the state of nature. And, Nature's God [the Creator, Divine Providence, or any other similar cognizable term] does not grant the right of equality or the right to life. Man alone grants classification equality and the right, if any, to life. Equality is solely a legal construct, based upon classification and the principles of group association. Rights may be inspired by a man's belief in a god, but it is man and not god who grants rights.
For those who persist upon a belief that Nature's God grants equality or the right to life, it is an easy case to put to the test: we simply need a few hungry tigers and we'll experiment with the proponents. The hungry tigers will do exactly what Nature's God created them to do, first to the slowest runner.
Men are not equal in the state of nature and do not have a natural right to life. Such as Americans have associated as a group, it is the law that provides the classification that men are classified to be equal before the law, with a right to life, and only upon such limited terms and situational contexts as members of the group may decide by its principles of association.
And, as for equality and the right to life before God (or gods or any other similar cognizable term) for theists, I cannot and would not presume to judge.
_________________________
* Gregg Zegarelli, Esq., earned both his Bachelor of Arts Degree and his Juris Doctorate from Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. His dual major areas of study were History from the College of Liberal Arts and Accounting from the Business School (qualified to sit for the CPA examination), with dual minors in Philosophy and Political Science. He has enjoyed Adjunct Professorships in the Duquesne University Graduate Leadership Master Degree Program (The Leader as Entrepreneur; Developing Leadership Character Through Adversity) and the University of Pittsburgh Law School (The Anatomy of a Deal). He is admitted to various courts throughout the United States of America.
Gregg Zegarelli, Esq., is Managing Shareholder of Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group, PC. Gregg is nationally rated as "superb" and has more than 35 years of experience working with entrepreneurs and companies of all sizes, including startups, INC. 500, and publicly traded companies. He is author of One: The Unified Gospel of Jesus, and The Business of Aesop™ article series, and co-author with his father, Arnold Zegarelli, of The Essential Aesop: For Business, Managers, Writers and Professional Speakers. Gregg is a frequent lecturer, speaker and faculty for a variety of educational and other institutions.
© 2018 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq. Gregg can be contacted through LinkedIn.
#GreggZegarelli #NaturesGod #Life #Creator #Equality #ZygoteGestation #RightToLife #LegalRights #Laws #JFK #Kennedy #TomThumb #AndretheGiant #Diversity #God #StateOfNature #DeclarationOfIndependence #ThomasJefferson #Zegarelli #GRZ_78