Difference Between Burke And Wollstonecraft

Government and Rights People are born with natural rights and have the right to exercise them no matter what type of government they abide by. In 1790, Edmund Burke wrote the essay, Reflections on the Revolution in France in response to the French Revolution. That same month, Mary Wollstonecraft responded to Burke with her Vindication of the Rights of Man, challenging his work. Burke and Wollstonecraft present a unique and persuasive argument in regards to the role of government and its exertion of human rights; however, Wollstonecraft expresses a more realistic way people and government can exercise their rights. A civilization cannot run itself because there needs to be a government present to assure that things run smoothly and that citizens …show more content…
People are born with natural rights that allow them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All are born with these rights, but not all are allowed to display them freely. Burke believes, “Men cannot enjoy the rights of an uncivil and of a civil state together. That he may obtain justice, he gives up his right of determining what it is in points the most essential to him” (Burke 6). By being a part of society people have no rights. Burke believes that when people came together and formed civilizations, natural rights were given up for the monarchy, for the divine ruler. Monarchy is the best type of government because there is no need for natural rights when an educated and experienced ruler is ruling over the land. He expresses that the people that live in societies with monarchy have no voice, no say in what goes on in their own country because they gave up their own voice for their society. Wollstonecraft believes that they are slaves to the oppressive monarchy because they have no rights to anything, not even their own lives. People deserve to practice their natural rights. Wollstonecraft writes, “ The only security that nature authorizes and reason sanctions is, the right a man has to enjoy the acquisitions which his talents and industry have acquired; and to bequeath them to whom he chooses” (Wollstonecraft 5). The …show more content…
If people replaced them with something else, society would fall apart. Burke describes, “In this choice of inheritance we have given to our frame of polity the image of a relation in blood, binding up the constitution of our country with our dearest domestic ties, adopting our fundamental laws into the bosom of our family affections…”(Burke 4). Crowns have been handed down the same bloodline for centuries. These monarchies are traditional and make up the country that they occupy. Burke voices that this political system of tradition should give a yearning for patriotism in the heart of every citizen in the country. The people do not even have to think for themselves, the monarchy does it for them. The countries that have monarchies have many great ancestors and a bloodline of greatness, which should give people satisfaction and pride. Although Burke’s argument that monarchies have lasted centuries without fail and are the best for any civilization, Wollstonecraft argues that monarchies are not the best because exercising natural rights leads to happiness. While monarchies have been around for centuries, they are obsolete. People do not find joy in oppression and tyranny. People want to be free. Wollstonecraft explains, “…that true happiness arose from friendship and intimacy that can only be enjoyed by equals; and that charity