Edmund Burke State Of Nature Analysis

Edmund Burke was an Irish statesman born in Dublin, as well as an author, orator, political theorist, and philosopher. Burke had studied the Indian affairs with growing concern over the ruthless power politics being practiced by officers of the East India Company. In 1780, Lord McCartney appointed Warren Hastings as the governor of Madras. Burke strongly objected to this and began accumulating evidence of serious, systematic and repeated abuses of power. He then drew up the proceedings for Hastings’ impeachment. Most historians have agreed that Burke allowed his passion and his prejudice against Hastings to seriously impair his sense of justice during portions of the trial. Even though the trial ended in acquittal, Burke put forward great arguments.

He introduces the concept of the ‘state of nature’ in his articles. He describes this as a hypothetical time in the human beings life where he/she live uncorrupted by society. One of the main characteristics of the ‘state of nature’ is that people are free to do as they wish. They have complete physical freedom. With that being said, it also has a few disadvantages such as, people are unaware of morality and rationality of life and societal requirements. Hence, Rousseau talks about people are natural equal. He believes that inequality does not exist in the state of nature. In fact, the only kind of natural inequality that exists is the physical inequality amongst people who may be more or less able to provide for themselves according to their physical attributes. He then goes on to recognize the only form of inequality that exists in the modern society is due to the existence of different classes and exploitation of people by the powerful. These types of inequalities are termed as ‘moral

Each citizen should think only his own thought. By taking these precautions, you can ensure that the general will is always enlightened and that the people are never in error.
Edmund Burke used this against Warren Hastings. He said that Hastings acted purely on free will and that he only did what was best for his own personal good, rather than the good of the state. Warren confirmed that he took those decisions knowing the consequences, hence proving that they were deliberate. Like Rousseau said, once the members of the state stop thinking of the collective benefit of the society, it disunites them and affects it negatively. This is what happened in the case of Warren