Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797) was born in Dublin and was an Anglo-Irish statesman, economist, and philosopher. He was a member of Parliament (MP) between 1766 and 1794 in the House of Commons of Great Britain with the Whig Party.
Reflections on the Revolution in France is a pamphlet by Edmund Burke, a British politician, that he wrote in 1790. He wanted to compare the French Revolution, which was very violent and radical, with the British system, which was more stable and moderate. For many people, Reflections on the Revolution in France is the founding statement of conservatism. Burke argued that the revolution was destroying the fabric of society and traditional institutions of state and society.
According to Burke, the purported justification for the French Revolution was the notion of ‘the rights of man’. Indeed, France’s new assembly wrote down these rights in their Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. The first of articles was: 'Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.'
This view was often related to the kinds of thought experiments conducted by people like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau about what rights we naturally had or we originally had in a state of nature - i.e. before things were corrupted by people.
Burke's argument is based on three main points:
The concept of a right only makes sense if it is contextualised - it can't be abstracted from its circumstances
Rights exist only insomuch as they are what governments enforce.
Our criteria for establishing rights ought to be prejudice and precedent - i.e. respect for history.
Burke argued, however, that this was a bad basis for a revolution. He thought that these were mere ‘metaphysical abstractions’, plucked out of the air, speculative and free from any criteria. It is circumstances, he argued, that give things their meaning, and when we pluck things from these circumstances, they become meaningless and speculative. Government and liberty aren't good in themselves -otherwise we'd praise someone who escaped from prison!
Is such speculation really a justification for violence?:
…I cannot stand forward, and give praise or blame to anything which relates to human actions and human concerns on a simple view of the object, as it stands stripped of every relation, in all the nakedness and solitude of metaphysical abstraction. Circumstances (which with some gentlemen pass for nothing) give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing colour and discriminating effect. The circumstances are what render every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind. Abstractedly speaking, government, as well as liberty, is good; yet could I, in common sense, ten years ago, have felicitated France on her enjoyment of a government, (for she then had a government,) without inquiry what the nature of that government was, or how it was administered? Can I now congratulate the same nation upon its freedom? Is it because liberty in the abstract may be classed amongst the blessings of mankind, that I am seriously to felicitate a madman who has escaped from the protecting restraint and wholesome darkness of his cell on his restoration to the enjoyment of light and liberty?
-Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in FranceHe did not want to deny that people had rights, but he wanted to discuss real and concrete rights, not speculative or abstract or ‘original’ rights. He argued that (contrary to the views held by Rousseau) it was in fact civil society, society which is governed that gives rights. Civil society doesn't take them away. Civil society enables us to get out in proportion to what we put in.
Far am I from denying in theory, full as far is my heart from withholding in practice, (if I were of power to give or to withhold,) the real rights of men. In denying their false claims of right, I do not mean to injure those which are real, and are such as their pretended rights would totally destroy. If civil society be made for the advantage of man, all the advantages for which it is made become his right. It is an institution of beneficence; and law itself is only beneficence acting by a rule. Men have a right to live by that rule; they have a right to justice, as between their fellows, whether their fellows are in politic function or in ordinary occupation. They have a right to the fruits of their industry, and to the means of making their industry fruitful. They have a right to the acquisitions of their parents, to the nourishment and improvement of their offspring, to instruction in life and to consolation in death. Whatever each man can separately do, without trespassing upon others, he has a right to do for himself; and he has a right to a fair portion of all which society, with all its combinations of skill and force, can do in his favour. In this partnership all men have equal rights; but not to equal things. He that has but five shillings in the partnership has as good a right to it as he that has five hundred pounds has to his larger proportion; but he has not a right to an equal dividend in the product of the joint stock. And as to the share of power, authority, and direction which each individual ought to have in the management of the state, that I must deny to be amongst the direct original rights of man in civil society; for I have in my contemplation the civil social man, and no other. It is a thing to be settled by convention.
-Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France...And far more important that these speculations about what we might have a right to, is the question of how we are to arrange things so that we can actually have them.
What is the use of discussing a man's abstract right to food or medicine? The question is upon the method of procuring and administering them. In that deliberation I shall always advise to call in the aid of the farmer and the physician, rather than the professor of metaphysics.
-Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in FranceBurke's argument was roughly that, if they can be asserted without criteria, then surely they can be changed and thrown out without criteria. So the question was now - what are those criteria? On what basis do people have rights? Burke's rather surprising answer was prejudice. He argued that we inherit our values. Like David Hume, he thought that custom and tradition were our guide to life. Reason alone can't motivate us, but tradition and prejudice - with all its emotional aspects - can 'render a man's virtue his habit'.
On the face of it, this might seem rather silly, but he argued that the reason why prejudices last is because they, in some way, work., and the longer a prejudice has existed, the more reliable it is. So you should not throw them out without fully understanding how and why they work. Mostly, when faced with uncertainty, we don't have enough information to make a 'calculation', and instead we have to rely on our prejudices.
You see, Sir, that in this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess that we are generally men of untaught feelings: that, instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree; and, to take more shame to ourselves, we cherish them because they are prejudices; and the longer they have lasted, and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them. We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason; because we suspect that the stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek, (and they seldom fail,) they think it more wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice, and to leave nothing but the naked reason; because prejudice, with its reason, has a motive to give action to that reason, and an affection which will give it permanence. Prejudice is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue, and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision, skeptical, puzzled, and unresolved. Prejudice renders a man's virtue his habit, and not a series of unconnected acts. Through just prejudice, his duty becomes a part of his nature.
-Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in FranceA useful way to think about this kind of argument for conservatism was given by the write G K Chesterton:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, 'I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away.' To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: 'If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
-G K Chesterton, The Thing: Why I am a CatholicDoes the fact that we have always done something in a particular way always justify keeping it (or changing it slowly)? Think about some examples - some more serious than others:
Men tend to wear ties to work. Why? Should this continue?
Men don't tend to wear skirts. Why? What would happen if this changed?
People wear clothes. Why?
Slavery is a very ancient institution. It's absurd to suggest that we shouldn't stamp it out, isn't it?
Women have been treated as second-class citizens in many societies for millennia. That must not be tolerated, surely?
Burke makes the point that he is not against change, but he thinks that rather than basing change on abstractions and 'universal principles', change should instead be specific and contextual. He takes as his archetype here the 1688 Glorious Revolution.
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was a series of events that led to the overthrow of the Catholic King James II of England, Ireland, and Scotland by his Protestant daughter Mary II and her husband William III of Orange, the ruler of the Netherlands. The revolution was mostly peaceful, as many of James’s supporters deserted him and joined William’s invading army. The revolution resulted in the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, where the power of the king was limited by the Parliament and the Bill of Rights.
For Edmund Burke, this was the way change should occur, gradually and carefully - a far cry from the methods that characterised the Revolution in France.
What (according to Burke) was the philosophical basis for the revolution in France?
What was Burke's argument against this position
Evaluate Burke's position.