Skip to main content

"The Pursuit of Happiness"



That phrase comes, of course, from the Declaration of Independence. It is the third of the unalienable rights, along with life and liberty. The word "property" often shows up as the third item on such lists, and does so for example in both the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment. But Jefferson wrote of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Much heavy water has been made of this in the last 2 and 1/3  centuries. I'm reminded of an episode of The Sopranos in which Tony is complaining to his psychologist about his terrible life.  He says that he saw a documentary on The History Channel in which the anchor said that the US is the only nation in the world with a founding document that explicitly mentions happiness.

"So where is my happiness," he cries.

Dr. Melfi, "'Pursuit' is what it says."

Tony: "Yeah, there's always a fucking loophole."

Anyway, one common question is the origin of Jefferson's phrasing. In the background stands John Locke as a critical figure in the education of the discontented colonists in general. But this wording in particular probably arose in response to more proximate suggestions.

Indeed, just a few days before the Declaration of Independence was issued, Virginia had published its own "Declaration of Rights," formally adopted on June 12, 1776. George Mason, the author of that document, had referenced "the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Jefferson may have been thinking of Mason, and trying to achieve a more concise expression of the same idea. In that case, Jefferson's exclusion of "property" from his own wording doesn't imply any implicit demotion of it. It is there quite explicitly in Mason's wording, and Jefferson likely thought the connection between property and happiness too obvious to need another such explication.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…