What should be the inalienable rights of man?
“Life, liberty and the pursuit of property”
or
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
Making a choice between the two constitutes an admission on your part that wealth and happiness are independent entities. In fact, could one argue that modernization’s comforts and conveniences have wrought more misery on mankind rather than happiness?
We all aspire for that big house, that fashionable car, the trendy clothes – all the while thinking that those things will make us happier than we already are. Yet in most cases, only the most cunning attain these “desirable” things. The rest of us gawk in amazement, desiring, stretching out but never quite plucking the fruit. Yet we never give up:
“If I don’t get there, my offspring will have a chance…”
If only it were that easy, how much better would our condition be? In life, we seek liberty and wealth, our liberator from the mindless pursuit becomes death – for only then are unwittingly forced to “give up.” But even then, our legacy lives on. Our children perpetuate the same myth. Hence do we have endless conflicts for resources; nation attacking nation, brother attacking brother, son attacking father...
If wealth was synonymous to happiness, then it would not be finite. Happiness, in my opinion, is an unquantifiable state of mind that can only emanate from practicing compassion from one being to another.
As such, in the words of Roy M. Goodman, “Happiness is a journey, not a destination.” I don’t know how one knows when they get there, or if one ever gets there, but I definitely think it is worth traveling. After all, we will all be dead and solitary for a very long time. Might as well make it count for each other while we are still around!
5 Comments:
as many people will agree wealth or the pursuit cannot equal happiness.
happiness to me begins with appreciation of life and what we already posses.
it is an inwardly cultivated emotion that requires very little of material wealth.
i would rather be happy than wealthy. if somehow the good Lord can give me both, I will be even happier.
there in lies the problem 3N...
There is always a caveat when that question is posed:
everybody says they'd rather be happy but in the next breath - betray the fact that they might find it hard to be happy without chums ...
John Locke's theory of property rights influenced the founding fathers' inalienable rights.
To understand the meaning of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness you have to understand John Locke's writings. Wealth as we know it has changed over time.
Basically, I believe that man's inalienable rights should be life, liberty and the pursuit of property.
You can be happy without property but you should be given the opportunity to legally acquire property.
ssembonge:
Yes, wealth has changed over time I agree, but the appetite to acquire it by human beings has never been whetted. Furthermore, the pursuit of wealth (be it shells, gold, land, currency, stocks, etc) has long proved an illusion - the domain of the few endowed with the requisite guile and ruthless self-interested behaviour. From that perspective, enshrining the "pursuit of happiness" perpetuates the feudal-era mentality of lord and peasant - and nothing can be further from happiness than that!
Pursuit of happiness is the freedom to DO what you want. By the work of your hands, you are able to 'reap' property or wealth.
As you can see 'happiness' means something different to what you have in mind.
The concept of money has changed the whole theory.
Post a Comment
<< Home