The pursuit of happiness?

**Luke** · May 26th, 2009, 20:20

For the most part I think the founding fathers had a great way of expressing themselves and their ideas, however, I realize the language has changed in the past 200 odd years, yet...

I often struggle with the phrase "the pursuit of happiness"? I am fairly happy after several shots of Jack, yet I wouldn't leave my home after doing them. I used to feel pretty happy doing illegal drugs, although the pursuit of gaining them outweighed the happiness gained.

It would seem to me that "the pursuit of happiness" is a very subjective phrase, as some may find the pursuit of happiness sailing a boat, some may find it firing an automatic weapon,yet others would find happiness posting on internet forums.

If this pursuit of happiness thing is an inalienable right, how can it be defined?

**Ryan Ruck** · May 26th, 2009, 22:35

I don't think it was necessarily meant to be defined. I think it was more likely to say, "This is to declare that you are free to follow your pursuits, dreams, and goals you would like so long as it doesn't infringe on others rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness."

At least that is my take on it...

**Luke** · May 27th, 2009, 00:33

Thanks for the input Ryan. I understand that life and liberty concept, but playing the devils advocate here, what if my pursuit of happiness is different than yours.

Is it your understanding that as long as I do not infringe on your right to pursue happiness I can do what ever makes me happy? Here comes the devil part, what if I were to grow/distill illegal drugs in my home for my private consumption. How would that infringe on anyones pursuit of happiness?

I suppose it comes down to "the pursuit of happiness" being a major loophole in the law.

Also what if my pursuit of happiness requires me to chase butterflies in the nude while singing In-a-gadda-da-vida? As long as I am hurting no one, nor infringing on any ones rights wouldn't that be my constitutional right?

Sorry for the graphic image, drastic ideas call for drastic illustrations.

**Ryan Ruck** · May 27th, 2009, 05:09

I figured that was coming...

My take on drugs is that people should be free to destroy themselves as they see fit. However, if in the process of destroying themselves, they endanger, hurt, or kill others there should be absolutely no mercy or leniency.

As for the "pursuit of butterflies" (

), I'd say go for it so long as you don't infringe on anyone else (i.e. those who may not derive happiness from seeing such a sight

). Namely if it is on your property and out of the view/concern of others, then feel free!

**American Patriot** · May 27th, 2009, 13:31

Just don't steal.... the government can't STAND the competition!

**MinutemanCO** · May 27th, 2009, 13:48

While I’m no legal historian, that is to say my opinion on this subject is certainly open to scrutiny, keep in mind the context in which the quoted phrase from the Declaration of Independence was written.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration was at least a Deist (one who acknowledges the existence of God while perhaps avoiding many ascribed characteristics set forth in the Bible) and possibly even a practicing Christian. He certainly recognized that a great percentage of American leaders and general population, far beyond a majority, were Biblical Christians. That said, if you review the text, you’ll immediately see the reference to God and His endowment of unalienable rights. With this comes the inevitable presupposition that these rights would be maintained within the Biblical mandate of morality. Long story short… if one’s pursuit of happiness violates Biblical directives towards “Loving thy neighbor as thyself,” or those directives for personal governance outlined in the Gospels or the Epistles, then you’ve stepped beyond the boundaries of proper morality. Also, the phrase “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” allows governments, with the consent of those governed, to establish laws to direct these unalienable rights for the common good. Again, if shooting heroine into your arm seems like pursuing happiness to one person, based on our laws and God’s laws, it probably ain’t.

Also, the common contemporary practice of applying moral relativism to these words has no place in an effective analysis of the Declaration's intent.

**Luke** · May 27th, 2009, 17:18

All good answers, in particular MinutemanCO. I think perhaps I have been taking the "phrase" pursuit of happiness out of context. I tend to do that more an more these days.
Guess I will put on some socks, the drum solo is coming up!