Well reasoned and well written.

EWD

Brian Cha

Professor Dyson

HM RLST 113

Short Paper #1

When I first read William Paley’s Reasons for Contentment; Addressed to the Labouring

Part of the British Public, I was perplexed as to why Paley wrote such an out-of-touch journal

that seemed almost intentionally wrong. I could not decipher whether or not Paley genuinely

believed his writings or if Paley was trying to justify the existence and prolonging of the current

status quo. As the title suggests, Paley attempts to convince (or perhaps, gaslight) the British

peasantry that there is no justifiable reason to defy, question, or be jealous of the

aristocratic/clergy class that dominates Britain economically and politically. Knowing that Paley

comes from a clergical background, it is understandable why Paley would want to maintain his

advantage over the average British peasant. Henceforth, I believe Paley writes this journal, not as

a way to spread his personal beliefs but to maintain the status quo by trying to convince the

British peasantry that inequality is natural, that the poor have it much better than the rich in many

different aspects, and that in the end, religion dictates what one should pursue in the present.

Before we delve into Paley’s arguments for maintaining the status quo, let us first

examine why Paley wrote this journal pamphlet in the first place. After all, Britain maintained
their aristocratic status quo for centuries, meaning the British peasants weren’t exposed to any

other options for the foundation of society. Surely, such a society that has been nearly unchanged

for hundreds of years will be stable. However, once we take into account the historical time

period we will understand Paley’s motivation to write this journal. Paley wrote this journal in

1792, which happened to be when France, Britain’s next-door neighbor across the English

Channel, was in the middle of the French Revolution. Despite Britain and France being historical

enemies, these two countries still had many political and societal similarities before the

revolution. Such similarities include a reigning monarch, a class of aristocrats, an influential

clergy, as well as a disregarded class of peasants. Since the French Revolution specifically

targeted the French monarch, aristocracy, and clergy, their British counterparts began to worry

that their peasant populations would rise up against them in a similar fashion. Again, Paley being

part of the clergy indicates that it is in his interests to maintain the status quo and prevent a

similar revolution from happening in Britain. Though not stating his true motives outright, Paley

wrote this journal as a reaction to the ongoing French Revolution, which also explains his

reasons as to why the current British society should be maintained.

Paley attempts to ease the British public by asserting that the current status quo of vast

inequalities between the aristocrats and the peasant population is completely natural and fair and

that disturbing it anyway will not benefit anybody. Paley tries to justify wealth inequality and

declare it is natural by saying, “Fortunes however of any kind, from the nature of the thing, can

only fall to the lot of a few… [and] whilst fortunes are only for a few, the rest of mankind may

be happy without them.” (Paley, 3) By arguing that generational wealth inequality is natural,

Paley passively tells the audience that nothing can be done to alleviate this problem. He then
shifts the narrative by claiming wealth isn’t necessary for a fulfilling and happy life. While this

may be true to an extent, Paley fails to recognize that some level of financial stability is

necessary for happiness to exist at all. For example, one cannot be happy if they cannot afford

shelter or food for the family. For a large number of families living in poverty, this lack of

necessary finances is an unfortunate reality Paley simply ignores. Paley then suggests that these

rules which maintain this inequality are completely fair and changing it in any way will not help

anybody. Paley goes on to say that the peasantry should be grateful for these rules because “[the

peasant] himself is benefited every hour of his existence [with these laws and rules]; which

secure to him his earning, his habitation, his bread, his life; without which he, no more than the

rich man, could either eat his meal in quietness, or go to bed in safety.” (Paley, 2) It is hard to

imagine how Paley concluded that the poor benefit more from the laws that enable vast

inequalities between the aristocracy and peasantry. Again, Paley proclaims a false assumption

that all peasants can easily maintain living conditions for themselves (such as feeding their

families and having shelter). There is no tangible benefit that the laws provide for the peasants

because the peasants must sustain themselves. If such laws did not exist at all, I believe it isn’t

unreasonable to believe the peasant’s life will not change much, because these rules only

enhanced the wealth of the few. I believe the most important takeaway from Paley’s argument is

that nothing can be done to change the natural order of wealth distribution in society. By making

this assertion clear, Paley warns against the peasants that a revolution of any kind will not get rid

of inequality, and in fact, the current norm is the best for peasants.

Not only does Paley proclaim that the current system for society is the best for the

peasantry, but he also goes on to further declare that there are many aspects in which the poor
have it better than the rich, and in fact, the rich should envy the poor in some ways. I believe

Paley’s most incredulous claim is that “Frugality itself is a pleasure. It is an exercise of attention

and contrivance, which, whenever it is successful, produces satisfaction.” (Paley, 4) Paley

somehow claims that poverty isn’t a hardship but a pleasure to be proud of. Paley manages to be

extremely out of touch with the concept of poverty. People in poverty (especially back in those

days) could hardly afford to sustain their needs, including food and shelter. The way Paley

describes it is as if people in poverty are angry because they cannot afford their wants. This is

implied because Paley goes on to say, “There is no pleasure in taking out of a large unmeasured

fund. They who do that, and only that, are the mere conveyors of money from one hand to

another.” (Paley, 4) Poverty is not something that should be romanticized. By its very nature, a

person in poverty may have to forgo some of their most basic necessities to continue living. It is

almost insulting how Paley describes an unfortunate reality as something to be prideful of,

considering he was born and raised in a well-off family. It’s incredible the many times Paley

says the poor “does not know the rich” and that they have it all wrong with their assumptions.

But on the flip-side, Paley does not know what it means to be poor. Another outlandish

conclusion Paley alleges is, “Rest is ease. That is true. But no man can rest who has not worked.

Rest is the cessation of labour. It cannot therefore be enjoyed, or even tasted, except by those

who have known fatigue.” (Paley, 7) Here, Paley states that the poor have no right to be envious

of the rich who “ease”. Paley goes on by saying the rich cannot “rest” like the poor because the

poor will have rest after the cessation of labor. From this, it almost seems like Paley is

suggesting that the rich cannot feel at ease the same way the poor can because they do not fatigue

themselves or work. Besides asking the obvious question as to why the rich deserve all this

wealth if they do not work as Paley seems to claim, the rich do not work physical, laborious jobs.
The rich are very well able to feel at ease and rest because they must work to maintain their

wealth and prestige. This work is the exploitation of the peasantry. To claim that the rich do not

feel at ease because they don’t do physical work like the poor is a ridiculous statement. The poor

have every right to be envious of the rich and their ease. It is wrong for Paley to assert that the

poor have it better than the rich in different aspects of society. This is because the rich have

many options as to how they live their lives. The rich man can choose to work physical labor, he

simply chooses not to. The rich man can choose to wear ripped clothing and live in simple huts

but chooses not to. Poor people, on the other hand, have no choice but to live in relative poverty.

Paley’s proclamation is false because nothing is stopping the rich from living like the poor, but

the poor cannot live like the rich. Hence it doesn’t make sense that the poor have certain

advantages over the rich when the rich can make choices about how they live their lives.

Finally, Paley professes that religion is a major reason why the British peasantry should not

revolt and maintain the status quo. In essence, Paley claims that religion “smooths all

inequalities, because it unfolds a prospect which makes all earthly distinctions nothing.” (Paley,

10) In this sense, Paley is not wrong. The British people are Christians, and Christians believe in

an afterlife. Assuming everyone was a good person and ended up in heaven, no matter if you

were rich or poor, as long as you were a good person, you will end up living in God’s eternal

grace for eternity. Hence, Paley argues, why would anyone care what happens in the present

world if they will live an eternity of happiness in the afterlife? But by that logic, shouldn’t the

rich be more accommodating of their wealth and help the poor? Again, if wealth doesn’t matter

once you go to the afterlife, why would the rich be so concerned with keeping their status and

wealth? It is very hypocritical that Paley brings up this argument because he is trying to persuade
the British peasantry to continue suffering while the rich can carry on living with their exorbitant

wealth. It comes off as disingenuous to use religion as a tactic to prevent otherwise devout

peasants from revolting against their overlords.

Overall, I am quite certain that Paley does not believe his writings in his journal.

Considering he spent a majority of the writing defending the status quo, one must conclude that,

indeed, the rich have it much better than the peasantry. And yet, Paley continues to assert that the

rich should be jealous of the poor, and therefore the poor have nothing to complain about. In

reality, this journal is written in an attempt to protect the very institutions that enable the rich to

dominate the lives of the poor. Paley is part of the former group, being born in a wealthy family

who later became part of the clergy, of course, it is in his interest to keep maintaining his

standing in society. It was only after the events of the French Revolution that Paley feared his

status was in jeopardy and wrote this journal in an attempt to alleviate that fear.
Bibliography

Dyson, Erika. “Week of 5/31: A Posts First.” Google Docs, Google,

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hDVLfjZAaTA7enSc5V3UWSJKZUS_WaEGKu5q
PZhnDGI/edit?usp=sharing.

Paley, William. Reasons for Contentment; Addressed to the Labouring Part of the British
Public. F. Jollie, 1792.

“William Paley (1743-1805).” William Paley, UC Berkeley,

https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html.