All men are created unequal
March 1, 2011 4:38 AM Subscribe
Help me locate scholarly or serious resources discussing the idea that "all men are created equal."
This statement, at least as I interpret it, seems hopelessly naive to me. I find it hard to believe that the US founding fathers interpreted the statement in the same way I do and believed that it was true.
I'm interested in finding discussions of different interpretations of this statement, as well as in serious treatments of the idea.
I've read some of Hobbes' writings on the subject, but I'm finding it hard to find much in Google. Too many of the results returned are simply pages with excerpts from the Constitution.
This statement, at least as I interpret it, seems hopelessly naive to me. I find it hard to believe that the US founding fathers interpreted the statement in the same way I do and believed that it was true.
I'm interested in finding discussions of different interpretations of this statement, as well as in serious treatments of the idea.
I've read some of Hobbes' writings on the subject, but I'm finding it hard to find much in Google. Too many of the results returned are simply pages with excerpts from the Constitution.
Are you interpreting is as "all men equally endowed at birth with intelligence, strength, and other abilities"? This is a misunderstanding - it's closer to something like "all men should have equal political rights".
posted by turkeyphant at 5:04 AM on March 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by turkeyphant at 5:04 AM on March 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
Try googling "enlightenment egalatarianism" THere is still some chaff there, but it gets rid of a lot of the Constitution excerpts and looks like a lot of promising hits.
posted by TedW at 5:06 AM on March 1, 2011
posted by TedW at 5:06 AM on March 1, 2011
Well you can start here.
Hobbes is probably the modern originator of the concept in Leviathan chapter XIII. There's a related concept in French politics liberté, égalité, fraternité (liberty, equality, fraternity), and you'll find a lot of eighteenth-century French philosophers spending time there. Rousseau predates the Revolution, but his theories were pretty important in its philosophical justification.
At root, the idea seems to be a direct challenge to the divine right of kings and the concept that certain people were born "gentle," i.e. not simply having a higher social station but actually morally superior. In pre-modern and early modern times, the testimony of an aristocrat was considered to be inherently more trustworthy than the testimony of a commoner. Stephen Shapin has written extensively on that point. The eighteenth century concept encapsulated in Jefferson's famous expression is a rejection of that concept. All it really means is that there is no inherent moral difference between persons, even if accidents of birth and circumstance have created practical moral differences. We may not trust you, but it's because of what you've done, not who you are.
Ultimately, it seems a bit hard to give you what you're looking for without knowing 1) what you believe the Founders meant by it and 2) how your interpretation differs from theirs.
posted by valkyryn at 5:07 AM on March 1, 2011 [6 favorites]
Hobbes is probably the modern originator of the concept in Leviathan chapter XIII. There's a related concept in French politics liberté, égalité, fraternité (liberty, equality, fraternity), and you'll find a lot of eighteenth-century French philosophers spending time there. Rousseau predates the Revolution, but his theories were pretty important in its philosophical justification.
At root, the idea seems to be a direct challenge to the divine right of kings and the concept that certain people were born "gentle," i.e. not simply having a higher social station but actually morally superior. In pre-modern and early modern times, the testimony of an aristocrat was considered to be inherently more trustworthy than the testimony of a commoner. Stephen Shapin has written extensively on that point. The eighteenth century concept encapsulated in Jefferson's famous expression is a rejection of that concept. All it really means is that there is no inherent moral difference between persons, even if accidents of birth and circumstance have created practical moral differences. We may not trust you, but it's because of what you've done, not who you are.
Ultimately, it seems a bit hard to give you what you're looking for without knowing 1) what you believe the Founders meant by it and 2) how your interpretation differs from theirs.
posted by valkyryn at 5:07 AM on March 1, 2011 [6 favorites]
I think valkyryn nails it.
It is a mistake to take it literally- all men are created equal doesn't mean that all people are born with equal capabilities, talents or stations in life. He might have only been thinking of white males, but good philosophy transcends the narrowness of the philosopher's time.
It is both more basic and more lofty than that. We are all born drooling and hungry and need to be taken care of. And then we grow up and we all have the same rights. And responsibilities. It is a rejection of the ideas that social class and breeding make someone a "better". Maybe someone born into wealth and education might have more refined tastes (from their perspective) or more education. But their vote ought to count just the same.
posted by gjc at 5:23 AM on March 1, 2011
It is a mistake to take it literally- all men are created equal doesn't mean that all people are born with equal capabilities, talents or stations in life. He might have only been thinking of white males, but good philosophy transcends the narrowness of the philosopher's time.
It is both more basic and more lofty than that. We are all born drooling and hungry and need to be taken care of. And then we grow up and we all have the same rights. And responsibilities. It is a rejection of the ideas that social class and breeding make someone a "better". Maybe someone born into wealth and education might have more refined tastes (from their perspective) or more education. But their vote ought to count just the same.
posted by gjc at 5:23 AM on March 1, 2011
Gary Willis's Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence goes into that line rather deeply, especially regarding Jefferson's main philosophical influences (the Scots) and what seems a contradiction between Jefferson's ideas of equality and his ownership of slaves.
posted by General Malaise at 5:24 AM on March 1, 2011
posted by General Malaise at 5:24 AM on March 1, 2011
I think, from your question, that you're more interested in the history of the idea, and the links from valkyryn and General Malaise will help you.
However, you may get something of use out of Peter Singer's "All Animals Are Equal." In an attempt to justify the claim that animals deserve certain rights, Singer gives a pretty good analysis of how one might understand the claim, "All humans are equal." It's also easy to read and short, which may make it a good starting point.
posted by meese at 6:05 AM on March 1, 2011
However, you may get something of use out of Peter Singer's "All Animals Are Equal." In an attempt to justify the claim that animals deserve certain rights, Singer gives a pretty good analysis of how one might understand the claim, "All humans are equal." It's also easy to read and short, which may make it a good starting point.
posted by meese at 6:05 AM on March 1, 2011
In "A Theory of Justice" (the theory itself is commonly called "Justice as Fairness"), John Rawls goes pretty deeply into working out what equality should mean in a practical sense, and deals with the tension between the ideas of liberty and equality. He's in the tradition of Hobbes and Locke but develops the ideas in a slightly different direction. He also has the advantage of looking at how 200 years of "all men are created equal" has actually worked out in the U.S., so some of the problems he confronts are real, not hypothetical.
Later in his career, he wrote "Justice as Fairness: a Restatement" to go back over the same ideas from a more mature point of view. Also worth reading.
Rawls is very readable, having written in English in the 20th century. :)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:33 AM on March 1, 2011
Later in his career, he wrote "Justice as Fairness: a Restatement" to go back over the same ideas from a more mature point of view. Also worth reading.
Rawls is very readable, having written in English in the 20th century. :)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:33 AM on March 1, 2011
On the origin of the concept of natural equality (which, contrary to Wikipedia, and to valkyryn's answer above, does not begin with Hobbes), see Richard Tuck's Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development (1979). Tuck argues that it was John Selden who made the crucial move by positing an original state of absolute liberty in which 'men were all free and equal in rationality', prior to the setting up of civil society.
On the development of this concept of equality, see Jeremy Waldron, God, Locke and Equality (2002). Waldron argues that Locke gives as 'as well-worked-out a theory of basic equality' as we find anywhere in the canon of political philosophy. He also argues, controversially, that Locke's egalitarianism was grounded on religious assumptions, and that 'the notion of humans as one another's equals will begin to fall apart, under pressure, without the presence of the religious conception that shaped it'.
On the later history of this concept of equality, see David Armitage, The Declaration of Independence: A Global History (2007). Armitage shows how the claim that 'all men are created equal' has not always appeared self-evident; for example, he quotes A.J. Balfour at the Versailles Peace Conference declaring that it was 'an eighteenth century proposition which he did not believe was true', as he could not see how 'a man in Central Africa was created equal to a European'.
posted by verstegan at 7:30 AM on March 1, 2011
On the development of this concept of equality, see Jeremy Waldron, God, Locke and Equality (2002). Waldron argues that Locke gives as 'as well-worked-out a theory of basic equality' as we find anywhere in the canon of political philosophy. He also argues, controversially, that Locke's egalitarianism was grounded on religious assumptions, and that 'the notion of humans as one another's equals will begin to fall apart, under pressure, without the presence of the religious conception that shaped it'.
On the later history of this concept of equality, see David Armitage, The Declaration of Independence: A Global History (2007). Armitage shows how the claim that 'all men are created equal' has not always appeared self-evident; for example, he quotes A.J. Balfour at the Versailles Peace Conference declaring that it was 'an eighteenth century proposition which he did not believe was true', as he could not see how 'a man in Central Africa was created equal to a European'.
posted by verstegan at 7:30 AM on March 1, 2011
You will probably enjoy Lynn Hunt's The Invention of Human Rights. It covers the social currents that led to the creation of a philosophy of human rights (she points to the epistolary novel, the increasing notion of separation between bodies, and the rise of an individual instead of a community outlook), and then argues that human rights have an "internal logic" to them that means even though they were initially extended to only a small group of people that they would almost inevitably grow to encompass many different social groups. She also looks at various philosophies that challenged human rights in the 19th and 20th centuries.
posted by lilac girl at 7:35 AM on March 1, 2011
posted by lilac girl at 7:35 AM on March 1, 2011
Whoopsie daisy, my mistake. Lynn Hunt's book is actually called Inventing Human Rights.
posted by lilac girl at 7:40 AM on March 1, 2011
posted by lilac girl at 7:40 AM on March 1, 2011
« Older Getting the most out of two days in Prague | How do I research assisted living facilities? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by dfriedman at 5:01 AM on March 1, 2011