Although Lemuel Haynes and Mary Wollstonecraft discussed two distinct issues, slavery and female rights, the fundamental idea behind their works was that liberty and freedom should be equally distributed to all in a civilized society. Haynes Liberty Further Extended and Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman were ahead of the time they were written. In fact, Haynes claims that freedom is a naturally given gift to all human beings, regardless of race (242). One of the renowned feminists of that time, Wollstonecraft, presented her ideas with a significant portion of anger, suggesting that women should be equally allowed to aspire to the same goals as men. Indeed, virtuous existence is impossible if all people do not have the same opportunities to pursue their objectives and share their natural gifts. This rhetoric analysis argues that both authors created the framework for defining the good life by claiming that rights and liberties are inherent to all people and thus they should not be withdrawn from someone.
Individuals may perceive the good life differently, but it is impossible if people cannot use their talent, skills, and knowledge to attain specific goals. Wollstonecraft stated that women could become better citizens if men “be content with rational fellowship instead of slavish obedience” since females would become more “observant daughters, affectionate sisters, faithful wives, reasonable mothers” (179). Moreover, what is good or bad for one person is equally dignified or evil to others (Haynes 246). Both authors agree that liberty is essential for all people, and this term can be defined as having uniform opportunities, freedom of expression, and equality before the law (Wollstonecraft 230). If the law is threatened, people cannot attain a good life; thus, the more equality is present in society, the more virtuous it may become. However, from policymakers’ viewpoint, women were inferior creatures, allowing the government to create the environment that would enable men’s success (Wollstonecraft 30). In fact, Wollstonecraft’s sarcastic tone in her writing suggests that the regulations of that time were hypocritic because they allowed white males to dominate and discriminate against individuals based on their race and gender.
It is probably impossible to achieve virtuous life in a country if some groups are devoid of their rights or unaware of their options. If only a portion of a group’s potential is involved in decision-making, it cannot attain the highest potential. Therefore, Wollstonecraft promoted the idea that women should acquire physical and emotional strengths to become fully functioning members of society; in that case, virtuous life will become possible (31). Furthermore, the author seems appalled to elegance, delicacy, and gentleness, calling them the impediments to a good life (Wollstonecraft 31). Wollstonecraft is not sarcastic about these characteristics, but she appears to feel offended by the fact that strength is men’s privilege and a taboo for women. Still, her tone is satirical when she talks about the male population’s fear that if females are allowed to exercise and receive better education, they will become excessively masculine because it may not be attractive. The author also believes that being eloquent should no longer be a priority in the world that strives to build a good life.
Haynes did not use sarcasm or shaming language to claim that slavery is fundamentally wrong; instead, he chose to use the name of God to prove that liberty and freedom are divine gifts. Therefore, these inherent rights cannot be taken from us “without our consent” (Haynes 247). Since this natural law was violated through enslavement, society could not live a good life because some members were violently deprived of the opportunity to pursue their own ideas and develop their gifts. Indeed, the author claims that since people all belong to one species, the same rules should be applied to everyone without giving privileges to particular groups (Haynes 246). However, not only external factors can prevent one from achieving a virtuous objective. In fact, a person’s fears and prejudices, which are presented as shadows in Plato’s Cave , may prevent someone from learning and growing. Overall, a good life is possible if all people possess the liberty to seek knowledge and apply it because everyone will be producing equally good results. Still, even equality and freedom may not save someone from failing to become better if one’s mindset is incorrect.
In summary, Haynes and Wollstonecraft used the framework of slavery and women’s rights, respectively, to raise the issue of liberty. Evaluating their works and the tone they used in their writings allowed me to understand that equal rights, responsibilities, and opportunities are essential for society to reach a virtuous life. Furthermore, applying analysis to these readings helped me see that emotional writings are as convincing as rational explanations as in the case of Wollstonecraft’s and Haynes’s works. Indeed, Wollstonecraft’s satirical tone came from her anger at men who deprived her of her natural rights to pursue a better future. Haynes’s essay lacks sarcasm, but the author is quite assertive that slavery must be eliminated.