This essay examines the concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as unalienable human rights that underpin modern democracies. While these principles appear straightforward for individuals, the paper argues that their definitions become contested when applied across societies and governments. Through historical analysis of the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence, the essay demonstrates how the vagueness of these rights creates practical dilemmas: the state's authority to enforce capital punishment, conflicts between individual freedoms, and the impossibility of universal definitions of happiness. The paper concludes that the tension between individual rights and collective governance remains an unresolved puzzle requiring ongoing debate.
The idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a perpetually fascinating subject of debate when it comes to unalienable human rights. These principles clearly form the basis and foundation upon which many current governments are built. A person is entitled to the right to life—to continue worldly and bodily survival as defined. A person is entitled to liberty, to freedom of their own actions; limiting one's decision-making process would render the idea of "humanity" obsolete. Lastly, a person is entitled to the pursuit of happiness, because ultimately, what does humanity crave most in the world? Clearly, the finding of that happiness.
The definitions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, however, are a matter of debate between persons, societies, governments, and the interactions among them. One cannot simply claim that a person is entitled to "unalienable rights" such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" without examining the implications. How far do our personal rights extend when other humans are involved? As an individual, these unalienable rights appear logical, but where society and government stand, complications emerge.
Even in today's society, capital punishment remains an option, raising a fundamental question: what gives the government the authority to take a human's right to life? What right to freedom do we have when many lives whose own rights to live are extinguished as a consequence? In pursuing happiness, can one truly pursue it without the sacrifice of another's happiness? As scholars have noted, "Can happiness be universally defined? What makes one person happy might not make another person happy" (Miners).
The Founding Fathers wrote their beliefs on the documented paper that became the United States' Declaration of Independence. After the Revolution, the Constitution came to fruition in 1789, and the Founding Fathers inserted more specified clauses pertaining to their unalienable rights (Fletcher). Did the Founding Fathers properly think through the concept of "unalienable rights"? Perhaps they had, and perhaps some even agreed that the wording of these rights is inherently vague.
After all, they were acutely aware of their own precarious situations: they believed it was their right to pursue a happiness that separated them from the British king, whose happiness was to subdue theirs. It was in tyranny that these Founding Fathers banded together, and this context shaped their ideas about rights. The eradication of tyranny thereby granted them the right to their lives, their liberties, and the pursuit of their own happiness. This historical moment reveals that the Founders understood rights not as abstract universals, but as responses to concrete oppression.
What do these rights mean, indeed? Is happiness universally defined? The discussion of how to define the three rights differs from what one personally believes. In all aspects of unalienable rights, the perspective from which one views them determines one's belief.
"Reflects on why these rights remain perpetually contested"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.