Two Views of Human Nature

I have come to believe that there are only two ideas in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution that really matter. All the rest are really implementation details.

The essential core of Declaration of Independence is the claim that we are all endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, as individuals, there is something sacred in our nature.

The constitution builds on that premise. It is holds that rights originate in the people and are given to the state and the nation. But the unique genius of the constitution is that is asserts that no human being, and no human institution, is without flaws.

These are nearly opposite views of human nature. On the one hand we are said to have a divine spark, on the other we are said to be intrinsically corruptible and fallible. Both at the same time.

All the rest of the constitution and the amendments are just ways to ensure these two contradictory conceptions of humanity are resolved.

It struck me while walking this morning that some might say those two statements are the fundamental lessons of the Christian bible -- we are all flawed and we are all divine. Having been recent witnesses to the strife different personal conceptions of God creates, the founders set about to create a response to those two truths that was secular in practice.

In our personal relations with others, we tend to see our own divinity and the flaws of others. This is the "fundamental attribution error" where we see all the nuances of our own motivations in considering our behavior, but hold others to a standard that is not based on -- or does not even allow -- understanding their mitigating circumstances.

How might we treat one another if we always remembered we are fallible? How might we treat others if we always remembered they also embody something sacred?