Once you’ve annotated the reading, return here to answer four of the eight questions. Your responses should be at least a few sentences long (3-5). If you want, or need, to write more, that’s fine but not necessary. If you get into it and see patterns, answer all eight.
How does Burke want citizens to view their relationship to the State?
How should they view their rights?
What does the preference for inheritance imply about the individual’s place in society? about the origin of rights?
What would a preference for contract imply?
What is Nature’s role in Burke? How does Burke reconcile the natural with the social?
How does Burke view Reason?
Who is the audience for this argument?
What do the subject and style imply about audience?
Discussion:
1. Burke wants citizens to view their relationship to the State as that between a father and son. On page 55 of, “The Rights of Man and the Revolution Controversy”, Burke writes that citizens “… should approach to the faults of the state as to the wounds of a father, with pious awe…”. Additionally, Burke promotes the citizens rather blindly trust The State, assuming that the State has the citizens best interests minds. This especially evident when Burke references the law of “Fealty” on page 54. Through this reference, he proceeds to imply that if citizens of the British Monarchy were to revolt, the trust between authority and subject would be broken, and— like a petulant child— the State would have no choice but to govern tyrannically.
2. Burke believes citizens should view their rights— in opposition to Thomas Spence’s belief— as governed by the extent of their ability and inheritance. While Spence believed in a democratic allegation of land regardless of class, Burke believed that citizens [men] should have the right to function as they wish, and serve society within their ability to work, provide, and profit off whatever possessions or land they have. However, he believed only the noble, and well-inherited within society, had the natural-born right to manage and govern what occurred within the state.
3. Burke’s preference for inheritance as a method of dividing classes, implies that any one citizen’s place within the British Monarchy and its society was governed by their ancestors and their status. This is, consequently, the origin of the individual’s rights as well- meaning the personal liberties of a citizen were decided by their birth-right social class. Burke also identifies inheritance as a way to both preserve the rights given to those people within the society that have them (thus maintaining whatever power the State possesses, eternally), as well as diversifying the range of people able to exercise those liberties within the society. Burke rationalizes this preference towards those whom already possess a degree of nobility, by arguing that acceptance of this ‘inheritance’ strengthens the power of the State, through “…domestic ties…”(pg. 49); thus creating a nation that is both a family and a monarchy- and therefore bound tightly together by the social laws governing both relationships. This benefits Burke’s position as it essentially negates any form of revolution or revolt- this would not be just opposing the liberties awarded to you by the State, but with those awarded to your brothers, cousins, uncles, and father.
5. Burke explicates his belief that inheritance should designate personal liberties, as the manifestation of ‘natural order’, writing, “Our political system is placed in a corresponding symmetry with the order of the world.”, on page 49. To him, the inheritance of the crown, is a natural way to preserve the power and possessions of the monarchy eternally. In this way, he believes that laws, governing bodies, and ordinances are ‘artificial’, and simply function to support the natural order intended by God, through heredity of nobility, and thus liberty. Burke views revolutions against the Monarchy, and societal contracts, as revolts against the natural order and harmony of the world. Thus, he argues, revolution against any societal contract will result in an ever waging anarchy, from which there will be no respite until natural order (inheritance) is reinstated. Burke argues this with the conclusion that, in the event a society might transgress the natural order, all liberties they search for will be lost in the midst of fighting for them. Essentially, he perceives man’s logic as fallible and sophomoric, while the current state (of natural order) delivers a harmony within which the State has a wide scope of liberties that makes up for the lack of any individual ones.
Assignment:
Once you’ve annotated the reading, return here to answer four of the eight questions. Your responses should be at least a few sentences long (3-5). If you want, or need, to write more, that’s fine but not necessary. If you get into it and see patterns, answer all eight.
Discussion:
1. Burke wants citizens to view their relationship to the State as that between a father and son. On page 55 of, “The Rights of Man and the Revolution Controversy”, Burke writes that citizens “… should approach to the faults of the state as to the wounds of a father, with pious awe…”. Additionally, Burke promotes the citizens rather blindly trust The State, assuming that the State has the citizens best interests minds. This especially evident when Burke references the law of “Fealty” on page 54. Through this reference, he proceeds to imply that if citizens of the British Monarchy were to revolt, the trust between authority and subject would be broken, and— like a petulant child— the State would have no choice but to govern tyrannically.
2. Burke believes citizens should view their rights— in opposition to Thomas Spence’s belief— as governed by the extent of their ability and inheritance. While Spence believed in a democratic allegation of land regardless of class, Burke believed that citizens [men] should have the right to function as they wish, and serve society within their ability to work, provide, and profit off whatever possessions or land they have. However, he believed only the noble, and well-inherited within society, had the natural-born right to manage and govern what occurred within the state.
3. Burke’s preference for inheritance as a method of dividing classes, implies that any one citizen’s place within the British Monarchy and its society was governed by their ancestors and their status. This is, consequently, the origin of the individual’s rights as well- meaning the personal liberties of a citizen were decided by their birth-right social class. Burke also identifies inheritance as a way to both preserve the rights given to those people within the society that have them (thus maintaining whatever power the State possesses, eternally), as well as diversifying the range of people able to exercise those liberties within the society. Burke rationalizes this preference towards those whom already possess a degree of nobility, by arguing that acceptance of this ‘inheritance’ strengthens the power of the State, through “…domestic ties…”(pg. 49); thus creating a nation that is both a family and a monarchy- and therefore bound tightly together by the social laws governing both relationships. This benefits Burke’s position as it essentially negates any form of revolution or revolt- this would not be just opposing the liberties awarded to you by the State, but with those awarded to your brothers, cousins, uncles, and father.
5. Burke explicates his belief that inheritance should designate personal liberties, as the manifestation of ‘natural order’, writing, “Our political system is placed in a corresponding symmetry with the order of the world.”, on page 49. To him, the inheritance of the crown, is a natural way to preserve the power and possessions of the monarchy eternally. In this way, he believes that laws, governing bodies, and ordinances are ‘artificial’, and simply function to support the natural order intended by God, through heredity of nobility, and thus liberty. Burke views revolutions against the Monarchy, and societal contracts, as revolts against the natural order and harmony of the world. Thus, he argues, revolution against any societal contract will result in an ever waging anarchy, from which there will be no respite until natural order (inheritance) is reinstated. Burke argues this with the conclusion that, in the event a society might transgress the natural order, all liberties they search for will be lost in the midst of fighting for them. Essentially, he perceives man’s logic as fallible and sophomoric, while the current state (of natural order) delivers a harmony within which the State has a wide scope of liberties that makes up for the lack of any individual ones.