John Locke VS Edmund Burke

Evidently, both Locke and Burke agree as well as disagree significantly on some elements pertaining to revolution, in the sense that, Locke advocates for a relatively radical approach while Burke advocates for a relatively conservative approach. In that light, the aim of this paper is to compare and contrast the school of thoughts of these two noteworthy thinkers, particularly on the aspect of change. First and foremost, Locke formulated his natural rights and natural law theory which held that individuals are equal, free and they have rights. He adds by arguing that, “From the beginning of time, nature intended for humans to be equal (Locke, 2009, p. ” On the other hand, Burke disagrees with Locke where he affirms that individuals are not equal and they do not have equal rights. As such, they should resist any form of tyranny and the violation of the law and the established social contract between the rulers and the masses.

Locke asserts that in instances where political rebellion occurs, the ruling government should be discarded and in turn everything should start anew based on the natural rights. However, Burke supports political rebellion on the grounds that morals and rights are guided by the traditions and principles set by the diverse institutions in a particular society. Burke contends that individuals are born in a civil society and their quality of living are determined by the societal institutions (Burke, 2004, p. By the same token, both Locke and Burke agree on the fact that humanity need a government to manage and regulate changes. According to Locke revolution denotes entire dissolution of the ruling government and that after the occurrence of dissolution, people go back to the state of nature until they decide to give permission on the formation of a new government.

He adds by asserting the two possible incidences for the occurrence of revolution. First, when the prince or the government in power betrays the trust of their citizens or when there is a violation of the social contract which was established between the government and the citizens when the society was initially formed. This is because the social contract facilitated the government to have power and subsequently the masses agreed to obey the laws on the condition that the government will safe-guard their rights and properties. The second incidence where revolution can take place is in a scenario where the government in power assumes absolute power over the liberties, properties, and the lives of the masses. You established trade without capital…. by esteeming your ancestors, you would have learned to respect yourselves (Burke, 2004, p.

” Besides, Burke is opposed to violent rebellion which in turn leads to unnecessary bloodshed. Nonetheless, he concurs that violence can be adopted to attain change in government only in scenarios where it is proven to be absolutely necessary. For instance, he uses the case study of England where a change in the government was inevitable, consequently, the citizens only adopted the necessary actions and measures to fulfil the needed change and subsequently return the country back to normal. Firstly, Locke advocated for equality, natural rights and liberty among the people. On the other hand, Burke was opposed to the natural rights and equality among the people, instead, he proposed the traditional English Monarchy. Secondly, Both Locke and Burke disagreed on the existence of the state of nature, Locke believed in the existence of the state of nature where there is perfect freedom and equality.

Burke believed that the state of nature is impossible and that individuals are born in a civil society where there are established societal institutions. Thirdly, Locke and Burke supported political rebellion, Locke contends that political rebellion should occur in scenarios of tyranny and the violation of the social contract. Chicago: Harvard University Press.