What If the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness Was Relative?
By Nancy Salvato

For thousands of years, people have pondered the age old question, why I am here and what happens when I die. Depending on the answers a person hears during this time on earth, there can be a variety of different explanations. For many of us, there is the notion that we are here to serve a higher purpose. For others, life is simply what we make of it and it’s over when our bodies cease to function. Which answer is correct and how do we know?

The secular position on this question could be summed up by saying that, "the human race [is] an accidental by-product of blind material forces." [1] The secularists come to such a conclusion by employing scientific reasoning to prove what is knowable and justify their position by saying that there is no evidence to believe in what is unknowable. Non secularists use scientific reasoning to argue that there is a God which began the whole chain of events which resulted in the human race.

Stephen Barr, in Anthropic Coincidences suggests because, "life depends on a delicate balance among the various fundamental forces of nature," ^[2] the seemingly random chain of events which led up to our existence were perhaps not so random and were only possible if there was some catalyst for our coming into being. "The laws of nature did not have to be as they are; and the laws of nature had to be very special in form if life were to be possible." [3]

Even before the scientific advances which allow us to understand our biology, chemistry, and laws of physics, mankind was speculating about much of what has since proven true about our existence. For instance, the Roman Philosopher, Cicero, who lived 105-45 BCE, suggested in The Dream of Scipio, "...humans are brought into existence in order to inhabit the earth, which is at the center of this holy place, this paradise. They have been given souls made out of the undying fire which make up stars and constellations, consisting of spherical bodies animated by the divine mind, each moving with marvelous speed, each in its own orbit and cycle." [4]

While Scipio came to this realization in a dream, I will never forget the impact on me when I discovered in an Astronomy class that we are truly made out of stars. I found the whole idea of it simply awe inspiring. I penned the following, about 10 years ago, hoping it could be published as an expository children’s book.

According to Aquinas, "every effect requires a cause, and that nothing in the world is the cause of its own existence...there must be an original cause responsible for the chain of causation in the first place. To this first cause we give the name God." [5]

According to Augustine, God, being eternal, stands outside of time. [6]

Cicero uses reasoning similar to that of Aquinas as proof of why we exist.

"That which is always in motion is eternal. However, that which communicates motion to some other thing but is itself moved by some other force must necessarily cease to exist once this outside motion has ceased. Therefore, the only thing that never ceases to move is that which has the power to create motion on its own, for it can continue to move eternally because its power to achieve motion depends on itself alone. This is the source and the first principle of motion for all things that move. Being the first principle, it has no beginning. For since the first principle is the origin of everything else, it cannot have an origin itself. If it did originate from something else, we could not call it the first principle. And since it never had a beginning, it will never have an end. For if it did end, it could never be reborn from any other source and would no longer be capable of creating things, which is obviously what the first principle has to do. The source of all movement, then, is that which has set itself in motion and has no beginning or end. If it had beginning or end, one would have to imagine the entire heaven and every other created thing crashing down and ceasing to be, for that is what would happen if the force generating their motion were taken away." [7]

Modern science has shown that, "Time came into existence with the universe itself." [8] Modern sciences have shown that everything of this earth is made out of the same material created by stars. Science has not disproved Cicero’s line of reasoning, which continued...,

"Therefore, since it has been demonstrated that the self-moving principle is eternal, the same must be applied to the human soul. For unlike inanimate objects which can only be set in motion by some external force, the soul, in its very substance and nature, is an animate thing that, as such, derives its animation and motion from within itself. Since the soul possesses this characteristic of self-motion, we can only conclude that it, too, has no beginning and lives forever." [9]

Non-Secularists believe man was made in God’s image. The soul, being of God’s image, has no beginning or end. Secularists and non-Secularists use the same reasoning to justify their arguments regarding why we are here. One line of thinking says that it is random chance and there is no meaning attached to it, the other says that it is divine plan.

The United States was founded on the Judaic/Christian idea that we are endowed by the creator with inalienable rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are considered "Natural Rights" which exist outside of the law. Those living under the rule of law, instituted for the protection of these rights, are expected to practice religious tolerance of those committed to the same values and freedoms our government was instituted to protect.

There is a movement by Secularists to eliminate the influence of Judaic/Christian values in this country. If Secularists succeed in pushing the relevance of these values outside of the public square, the rights endowed to us by our creator will likely become irrelevant as such. Should moral relativism becomes the code by which we live; there is no longer any guarantee that we will all be protected equally under the law. Moral relativism is what erases ethical standards, allowing pedophiles to serve minimal jail time for abusing children sexually. This is what allows people to say one group subjected to mass genocide is more worthy of rescue than another. If people truly believe in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, when a group of people is being denied those rights by an oppressive government, it is morally just to interfere. Moral relativism allows us to say, I’ll follow rules which I believe but I’ll break rules with which I disagree. This assumes that we are not all equal under the law. For those who believe in "Natural Rights", moral relativism is a dangerous idea, regardless of why we are on this earth.