We recognize them (rights) as being inherent in the nature of man. (Thanks Neocon!) They do not come from society, except to the extent that society recognizes these self-evident truths.
But yet, I am still confused on how an agnostic can recognize these self evident truths. Even though there is no religion involved, it begs the question, what makes the nature of man different than the nature of animals. I mean, in the barnyard, the owl decides which mouse to kill tonight, and which ones have the right to live. He has his choice. It is not like he has to take the first opportunity. So he is God to the mice. This is nature. But is this the nature of man? Or is this the wrong question. A society of mice would have self-evident gods. A society of owls, or sharks or some animal species that has no predators (except for man) would presumably live like equals, right? What about a society of sea lions? Where the bachelors never get to mate. Equals? Would that be acceptable to men? I society where only the strongest or smartest or most sociable get to breed? That isn't man's nature. Man's nature is different.
Is the law of gravity in place throughout the entire universe? No, it isn't. But the laws of justice are universal.
I think all men and women are created equal, both in the eyes of the law, and in form. |
