February 6th is a day that will forever be remembered by Patriot fans around the nation as the day Tom Brady led the greatest comeback in modern football to become a five-time Super Bowl champion. However, for millions more, this day is representative of a long human rights debate that began over centuries ago. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Edmund Burke, and Jeremy Bentham met on this day to have an important debate over human rights. Stanton gave her viewpoint on the issue, then we heard a conservative contradiction from Edmund Burke, and a utilitarian contradiction from Jeremy Bentham.
In order to articulate this debateeffectively, this article will begin with the summation of Elizabeth Canton’s argument, then move to Burke and Bentham. Through the analysis of Canton and the rebuttals, it will be shown that Human Rights is an intricate concept that has no universal definition or understanding. Stanton asserts that men and women are created equal and have inalienable rights endowed to them by the creator and also through natural law (Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. 1848). Stanton’s argument is supported by many individuals throughout the centuries.
Lauren, an academic on the subject of human rights, quoted 16th century philosophers proclaiming that all men were equal “because they are all created by one supreme being. ” (Lauren, Paul Gordon. 1998. P. 13) The concept of rights being endowed by a creator has been around since the beginning of civil rights philosophy. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, being an advocate for women’s rights in the United States, held firm the importance of government through consent of the people. Stanton asserts that government was created in order to protect our rights endowed o us by the creator, and when governments do not fulfil their purpose, citizens no longer owe the state their allegiance (Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. 1848). In Stanton’s famous Declaration of Sentiments, she listed many grievances she held against the United States government.
Women were not treated as equals under the law, and lacked many basic rights that males were afforded. When women got married, they would lose their identity, becoming legally dead and private property would be transferred to the husband, these are only two of many examples of how the government violated their duty according o Stanton. Individuals must take action to change the current government, and replace it with one that will afford human rights without a gender bias. For Stanton, this does not necessarily mean revolution. However, one must recognize the audience to which she is speaking. Women in the United States watch her fight for their equal rights, however, she is also being watched by women around the world. So while Stanton does not directly call for revolution, her strong rhetoric will motivate women around the world to call for change in their government and protests.
In some more restrictive countries this could possibly lead to violent clashes. So. while she may not resort to violence or revolution directly, others in even more restrictive nations may have to. She is using strong rhetoric to demand change for women around the world. Stanton demands the equal treatment of women under the law in accordance with her interpretation the creator’s will, and will continue to advocate until it is achieved (Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. 1848).
The first critique, Edmund Burke, of the night will be addressed. Burke spoke to the origin of human rights, the slippery slope uman rights creates, and the changing of government. Burke does not believe in rights endowed by a creator. However, he does agree with Stanton that natural law does exist. It is disagreed upon, on how it can be interpreted and applied to the human rights question. Stanton uses the concept of natural law as another justification of human rights, while Burke believes that rights cannot be derived from it (Lauren, Paul Gordon. 1998. P. 25). Burke stated that public affirmation of human rights would lead to political and societal upheaval.
The equality being romised through human rights is false, and can never be. Human Rights according to Burke can be a slippery slope. Burke argues that through history, we can see the true nature of humanity, which is heinous. If man is given too many rights that he would “want everything” (Lauren, Paul Gordon. 1998. P. 25), man would continue to demand more and more from the government. Burke also addresses the issue that equality can never be a reality, no matter how many rights are afforded to citizens. “false ideas and vain expectations in men destined to travel in the obscure walk of laborious life. (Lauren, Paul Gordon. 1998. P. 25) some will have less and work more even though equality is promised. Eventually, this promise will lead to discontent and possible revolt from the lower classes. Burke also had differing opinions when it comes to the issue of government, and whether it should be overthrown or changed.
Burke points to the French Revolution as one main example to support his arguments. It is difficult to overthrow a king or change the sitting government without force. Once force is involved, it is no longer completely about the rights or the issues, but about war (Burke, Edmund. 790). So, one must be very particular when deciding whether to take action against the sitting government. Burke said, “The speculative line of demarcation, where obedience ought to end, and resistance must begin, is faint. ” (Burke, Edmund. 1790) Meaning that it is a difficult decision to make, and not always a clear-cut decision, and that revolution should be a last resort.
Burke also asserts that citizens should not dispose of all government history, or throw away the government of years past without just cause. The government is often the hard work and intelligence of revious generations. Use the experience the nation was built on to improve your nation. For example, Burke asserts that France had a good foundation. The constitution was suspended before perfected, and the French did not build up what was present but instead tore it down. Wisdom from past generations was being lost(Burke, Edmund. 1790). Thus, Burke argues that instead of working to have a different government or overthrow government, one should work to use the wisdom present from past generations in the government structure to make changes that will make the state stronger.
Burke may be viewed as being more realistic than Elizabeth Stanton (Butterfield, Jo. 2017). He recognizes man’s hunger for power, and how human rights may feed into that. Once one right is given, more will always be demanded. Man will not be satisfied. This is a conservative viewpoint to an issue that has many sides. Now, the utilitarian contradiction must be discussed. Jeremy Bentham is the main voice behind this perspective. Bentham sees human rights as nonsense. It is an abstract idea that cannot be defined. Rights are derived from the law. According to Bentham’s argument, an is ruled by his instincts and his wants. He will always put himself first, and the government is established to protect man from each other (Butterfield, Jo. 2017). Without government, man would pursue his intentions, no matter the pain it would inflict upon fellow man.
Therefore, natural rights cannot exist. Without government there would be no obedience, and without obedience there would be no order, and without order, no law, and thus no rights (Bentham, Jeremy. 1816). The law is the only concept of rights able to be defined and codified. Human rights as no definition or universally accepted meaning. It is a meaningless concept that is unenforceable. Bentham asserts that all decisions man makes are based on utilitarianism. Man will do everything for himself. He will maximize his happiness and wealth while minimizing his pain. Elizabeth Cady Stanton gave a great explanation of her viewpoint today, and the audience was extremely fortunate to hear two great philosophers give their rebuttals and differing opinions on the issue of human rights. This is a complex issue, and one that will continue to be debated for as long as man exists.