Very thought provoking as usual! As other commenters have alluded to, I think the analogy is more useful in our evaluation of previous generations rather than actual reality (Platonic or Aristotelian) of human rights. Part of what gave the declaration (and anti-slavery arguments) validity was its assertion that those rights already existed before they were realized. But to expect previous generations to have lived up to ideas not yet expressed just because of their Platonic existence is akin to expecting prehistoric humans to have used computers or expecting us to use yet undiscovered modes of interstellar travel.
BTW I’m a new follower of the blog and a fan of your books. I really admire the clarity in your writing and the thorough historical context.
Well put, Drew. Part of the issue, discussed in various other installments, is: how many people have to say something is a human right before it becomes a human right? In 1700 the proportion of people on earth who thought slavery was wrong on principle was very small; by 1900 it was a large majority. And is all this a one-way street? Can rights be rescinded? Abortion rights in America?
Another amazing article, Professor Brands. Is Professor Brands how you would like us to refer to you on here? I refer to you as H. W. Brands when I talk to my students, but that's because I'm mentioning you and not speaking directly to you.
I tagged Lucas Morel and Phil Magness on Twitter when you tweeted today's post. Here was Morel's reply:
"Love Brands but he needs to read Federalist 31 to get a better understanding of self-evidence. Also don’t buy his Plato-Aristotle analogy. So I concur with his conclusion rather than wholehearted join his opinion of the deficiencies of the 1619 Project."
What are your thoughts regarding what Morel says here? I really enjoyed today's post, I get where Morel is coming from by mentioning Federalist 31, but I can also see where he's wrong.
Just call me Bill. Fed 31, to my reading, shows the flaws in the "self-evident" approach. Hamilton's examples are either wrong - matter is not infinitely divisible (particle theory), the whole is not necessarily greater than its parts (Cantor set theory) - or tautologous (a government has the power to tax: this is AH's definition of government). But others disagreed that the new federal government should have the power to tax individuals. And here H's argument is as tenuous as TJ's assertion that all men are created equal. Maybe they are, but plenty of people disagreed (and still do, as measured by their actions if not their words). Which strongly suggests that the concept wasn't self-evident. I grant that the Plato/Aristotle distinction is more complicated than I allowed; small libraries have been written on each. But I think the idealist/realist distinction in approaches to knowledge is useful in discussions of human rights and other values.
Professor, I'd like to comment that "self-evident" was a suggestion from Benjamin Franklin to the original “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable”. I love your books. Thank you.
Great writing as always Professor Brands.
Thanks, Fate. Glad to hear from you.
Very thought provoking as usual! As other commenters have alluded to, I think the analogy is more useful in our evaluation of previous generations rather than actual reality (Platonic or Aristotelian) of human rights. Part of what gave the declaration (and anti-slavery arguments) validity was its assertion that those rights already existed before they were realized. But to expect previous generations to have lived up to ideas not yet expressed just because of their Platonic existence is akin to expecting prehistoric humans to have used computers or expecting us to use yet undiscovered modes of interstellar travel.
BTW I’m a new follower of the blog and a fan of your books. I really admire the clarity in your writing and the thorough historical context.
Well put, Drew. Part of the issue, discussed in various other installments, is: how many people have to say something is a human right before it becomes a human right? In 1700 the proportion of people on earth who thought slavery was wrong on principle was very small; by 1900 it was a large majority. And is all this a one-way street? Can rights be rescinded? Abortion rights in America?
Another amazing article, Professor Brands. Is Professor Brands how you would like us to refer to you on here? I refer to you as H. W. Brands when I talk to my students, but that's because I'm mentioning you and not speaking directly to you.
I tagged Lucas Morel and Phil Magness on Twitter when you tweeted today's post. Here was Morel's reply:
"Love Brands but he needs to read Federalist 31 to get a better understanding of self-evidence. Also don’t buy his Plato-Aristotle analogy. So I concur with his conclusion rather than wholehearted join his opinion of the deficiencies of the 1619 Project."
What are your thoughts regarding what Morel says here? I really enjoyed today's post, I get where Morel is coming from by mentioning Federalist 31, but I can also see where he's wrong.
Just call me Bill. Fed 31, to my reading, shows the flaws in the "self-evident" approach. Hamilton's examples are either wrong - matter is not infinitely divisible (particle theory), the whole is not necessarily greater than its parts (Cantor set theory) - or tautologous (a government has the power to tax: this is AH's definition of government). But others disagreed that the new federal government should have the power to tax individuals. And here H's argument is as tenuous as TJ's assertion that all men are created equal. Maybe they are, but plenty of people disagreed (and still do, as measured by their actions if not their words). Which strongly suggests that the concept wasn't self-evident. I grant that the Plato/Aristotle distinction is more complicated than I allowed; small libraries have been written on each. But I think the idealist/realist distinction in approaches to knowledge is useful in discussions of human rights and other values.
Professor, I'd like to comment that "self-evident" was a suggestion from Benjamin Franklin to the original “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable”. I love your books. Thank you.
Yes, the editor in Franklin valued succinctness. And the deist in him thought "sacred" got too close to Christian "sacraments."