John Locke And Edmund Burke Ideologies Related To The The Notion Of Equality

John Locke and Edmund Burke ideologies were fundamentally different because the former believed in liberalism while the latter believed in conservatism. Burke was a conservative thinker and a hater of the French revolution while Locke was an advocate for the rights of man and a liberalist thinker. In essence, Locke and Burke's ideologies were based on their separate beliefs on the rights of man. On one hand, Locke’s philosophies or ideologies are thought to have contributed to the American and French revolutions primarily as a catalyst of change in the world in terms individual rights, the government, and the rule of law.

On the other hand, Burke’s ideologies were the direct opposite of Locke as he was wary about radical changes such as the French revolution and instead advocated for measured pragmatism based on the bedrock of tradition. As such, Locke’s reflections on change were liberal and focused heavily on government and the rights of people to initiate change, but Burke’s reflection on change was conservative, that is, they were tied to practicality, hence tied to tradition.

Get quality help now

RhizMan

Verified writer

Proficient in: John Locke

4.9 (247)

“ Rhizman is absolutely amazing at what he does . I highly recommend him if you need an assignment done ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Locke and Burke’s ideas on individual rights were fundamentally different based on the notion of equality. Individual rights of people can include factors such as free speech, privacy, rights to property, and freedom of conscience. Locke in his natural law and natural rights theory argues that every person is free with equal rights based on the fundamental moral truths that encompass people regardless of their place of origin or the agreements they have made (Tuckness 1).

Locke’s conception of individual rights based on equality is derived from natural phenomena, whereby natural law emphasizes duties while natural rights emphasize privileges. In effect, Locke’s conception of individual rights was based on the idea that natural rights supersede natural law especially when individuals are in need of preservation (Tuckness 1). The need for preservation can stem from occurring changes that may threaten an individual’s rights, thereby necessitating them to act against the natural law. A good example today is the United States. While the country faces myriad of challenges, the citizens are empowered through the constitution and its respective amendments to demand their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

In contrast, Burke’s conservatism was based on the opposition to change particularly in matters such as free speech, privacy, rights to property, and freedom of conscience that Locke supported. Conservatism as an ideology is based on the idea of the opposition of total or radical change (Andreasson 1). In essence, unlike Locke who believed in individual rights, Burke was against them. He believed that individual rights cannot supersede the natural order of things and ought to be, therefore, opposed. For instance, Burke believed that since traditional monarchies were in existence for over a thousand years, it made no sense to try and change the order of things (Andreasson 2-3). As will be explained in the analysis of government, Burke’s opposition to change is in direct disagreement with Locke. In the context of the contemporary setting, Burke’s conservatism can be viewed through the lens of aristocratic governments, where dictatorial regimes stifle the rights of people. Another good example can be the supremacy of the church, which is left unquestioned because many people believe in its superiority.

The differences of attitudes between Locke and Burke are profound regarding their positions on individual rights and their conceptions of governments. In essence, Burke’s conservatism, it appears, was based on individual willingness, common sense, and wariness of philosophical systems. The idea is that conservatives could accept change where necessary and not simply accepting any change that comes along or needlessly promoting it. Change for Burke, then involves a progressive approach to change where individuals must not necessarily accept calls to change when they challenge the traditions they have known for a long time. Here, individuals must be willing to accept a given change from the information they have, and they can do these by using their common sense and avoiding grandiose philosophical systems that are radical in nature. Unlike Burke, Locke’s liberalism was based on the natural rights identified before and the government’s role of preserving those rights. This means Locke’s approach to change is dissimilar from Burke because when the government does not fulfill its role, then the people have the right to initiate radical change.

Subsequently, the overarching difference between Locke and Burke in their understanding of government was based on the scope, functions, and powers. Locke’s believed in the limitation of government on the above-stated parameters, unlike Burke who believed in the limitation of government scope. In Locke’s treatise on government, he argues that the government’s purpose is to preserve lives, liberties, and estates (Locke, 486). This means that the government’s purpose is to help people enjoy better lives. In effect, when the government cannot improve people’s lives, then they should be subject to rebellion. Burke, on the other hand, viewed government as some sort of higher power, something spiritually revealed, and something not to be fiddled with.

Moreover, the differences in ideologies of government between Locke and Burke are visible in their thoughts regarding the French and the American Revolution. In his Treatise on Government, Locke believed that governments are set up to promote peace, safety, and the public good (Locke 289). When the government fails in these areas, then it must be subjected to change at all costs. The need for radical change may have influenced the French and American Revolutions. As an enlightenment thinker, Locke’s influence on both revolutions is unmistaken. In his theory of social contract, Locke stated that if the government was unable to fulfill its role, then people have the right to overthrow it (Locke 208). Locke’s ideas were based on the limitation of government power through a democratization of power. Take the example of the American Revolution; Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence borrowed some key ideas from Locke’s conception of natural laws and natural rights. Examples of keywords include equality, freedom of conscience, and power (Independence Hall Association 1 and Locke 215). The American Revolution resulted in the formation of a democratic government, which the French wanted. The French Revolution would also achieve a democratic government with limited powers and an empowered citizenry.

However, Burke’s opposed radical changes such as those of the American and French Revolutions because he believed in the supremacy of the government. In his Reflections on the Revolution of France, Burke was skeptical regarding the ideas of enlightenment, democracy, and people (such as those argued by Locke) (69). In essence, he argued that man in his capacity is an irrational being, which means that man needs to be ruled through custom, tradition, history, religion, social hierarchy, and religion (Burke 50, 77). Burke argued against radical changes of the existing fundamentals by opposing man’s claims of inherent rights and need to question governments. As a result, unlike Locke’s ideas that gave way or heralded the American and French revolutions, Burke was in direct opposition to them. Burke’s underlying thoughts and or reactions to the revolutions were against moral idealism that promoted the revolutions (Encyclopedia Britannica 1). As a result, Locke’s liberalism heralded the revolutions while Burke’s conservatism proposed measured pragmatism as a counterrevolutionary tactic against the revolutions. Burke’s conservatism proposed measured pragmatism as a counterrevolutionary tactic against the revolutions.

Other than the above, the state of labor appears to be one area that harmonized the philosophies or ideologies of Locke and Burke. Locke argued that property was an inherent right from the output attained from the investment of labor (Locke 75). The argument extended to state that the state has no right to claim any output produced by an individual. The interpretation is that no state can take away the properties of an individual without their consent. This means that government interference with people’s properties such as in the form of taxation or collection of revenues would require the consent of the individual; otherwise, it would be null and void. Similarly, while all of Burke’s arguments were against change, there was one exception and that was that governments should not involve themselves in market transactions (Burke 2). The underlying premise is that involvement in market transactions would destabilize the laws of nature. It is not immediately clear whether the non-involvement of government in market transactions extended to government’s claim on people’s property because of the supremacy of the government.

In the contemporary setting, Locke and Burke’s views on labor can offer interesting insights. While Burke’s exemplified the need for the government not interfering in market transactions, the extent of such interference is hard to determine. The situation is similar to Locke when examined in the modern context because governments are involved in trade or market transactions. Governments are involved through taxations, regulations, laws, and other levies in the modern setting, which means that Locke and Burke’s ideologies on labor cannot fit into the modern paradigm. This is because governments get involved in businesses for many reasons, particularly the collection of revenues for sustenance. However, an underlying point is that government involvement in business today may be prompted by the consent of people especially in democratic governments, which give rise elected governments’ power through the consent of the people to act on trade or markets.

In conclusion, Locke and Burke’s ideologies or philosophies on government, natural rights, and labor have distinct differences. Locke, being a predecessor of Burke ideology was based on the concept of liberalism while that of Burke was conservatism. The difference in philosophical thought was derived from the attitudes that each thinker possessed over man and society. The areas of contention between Locke and Burke were based on the necessity of change, where Locke argued for radical change while Burke was opposed to it. On government, Locke called for its limitation while Burke was supportive of its supremacy over the people. The calls for the limitation of government power heralded the American and French Revolutions, which heavily transformed the societies as can be witnessed today in a democratic sense. However, Burke was against such disruptions of the natural order. In essence, Burke was of the idea that philosophical systems such as the ones propagated by Locke could destabilize society and, therefore, are unwarranted. To this end, Locke and Burke’s ideologies were theoretically and functionally different in their approach and effects on individuals and society.