Declaration of Independence question. HELP!!!?

Question

Ok so for my government class, we have to answer questions about it and this one is kinda hard for me. So please help.

Oh! and i have to give evidence from the dec of indep to support it.

** Why do the signers of the Declaration proclaim that the equality of

all people is "self-evident" and their rights "unalienable"? Why do they

maintain that democracy is ordained by the laws of nature?**

Please help! thanx.. =)

Answer 1

It is an affirmation of basic human rights as granted and given by God. Ordained by nature, they say that it is in man's nature to be free and independent.

Answer 2

They were expressing the viewpoint of "Enlightenment" political philosophy.

You'll need to do some reading.  Some sources given below.

In a nutshell:

Self-evident refers to the fact that these ideas were widely circulated understood at the time, especially among the more educated.

Unalienable refers to the fact the these rights were granted by God, and as such, only God could (should) have the power remove those rights.

Democracy being ordained by laws of nature is far more complex, so do the reading, particularly "Leviathan".  

Answer 3

  This goes back to some basic philosophy of how to establish laws. Many have the thinking of doing what is right, through their religious beliefs. There is also areas of philosophy that think people need to do what is right for the community. There is also ones that believe do what feels good to you.

  The wanted to proclaim the equality of people is self evident and rights are unalienable. To still proclaim that our rights are a gift from god, while also a important part of human nature.    

Answer 4

The statement itself is not so much about Democracy, but rather concerns basic human rights. What they were saying is that all people have the right to life and should be free to pursue happiness in life without oppression based on religious, social or ethnic conventions. The proof of concept is supported not by one amendment, but is rather the underlying framework for the entire Bill Of Rights.

Answer 5

What makes one person better than another?

Is there anything that makes one person better than another?  Why does one deserve to rule, and the other deserve to serve?  Why should one be held in a lower caste because of who or where he (or she) was born?

The truth is that the only thing that should separate us are our own actions.  One does not deserve to rule because of who they were born to, anymore than one must be a servant or slave for having been born to someone else.

And remember that they are getting much of their ideas about life and humanity from the Bible.  In the Bible in Exodus, when God is handing down laws to Moses, one law He hands down is that the son should not pay for the father and the father should not pay for the son.  In essence, saying that we are each responsible for ourselves, not for each other.

Our equality is self-evident, and based on that King George III did not have the right to "lord it over them" solely because he was the king.  He was no better than they were, because he was just as human as they were and had not done anything to earn his position of leadership.

Then we get to the idea that CERTAIN rights are inalienable.  Not all are inalienable.  Inalienable means that they cannot morally be taken away from the person.

And those rights--the right to live, the right freedom and liberty, and the right to try to be happy--cannot morally be taken away.  God gave them to us, provided us with the want and the ability to fight for all these things.

God was the One who gave us life and the want to live, therefore we do not have the right to take away life because the person who owns that life is "in the way."  God was the one who made us equal under Him, and no one had the right to say they were better than anyone else since God had made no one better than anyone else; so it is immoral to take away one's freedom.  And God gave us the ability to be happy and provided us the ability to try to be happy; therefore its a God-given right and morally reprehensible to take away one's ability to try to be happy.

Note that we are not guaranteed happiness, just the right to try to be happy.  The right to work toward making our own life better for ourselves.  If we make it, if we don't, its irrelevant.  The point is that no one can take away our ability to try because its God who deemed it right that we should have that ability.