David Hume (1711–1776)
David Hume and his philosophy
Both Hume and Smith were contemporaries of Rousseau; likely knew each other
major figures of the Scottish Enlightenment
most famous/influential political philosopher of his era; first atheist we’re studying
his general view was that most philosophers have done it wrong;
defines false philosophy as self-deceptive and unconscious of how it passes off conventional prejudice as the product of autonomous, unencumbered reason
e.g. Locke believes he has thought neutrally about humanity and the “natural rights” of all peoples everywhere
yet, most societies did not have/desire this private property system
Locke is either propagandising what he wants the world to be like, or speaking from prejudice
sky-hook argument
true philosophy is not ambitious; “philosophical decisions are nothing but the reflections of common life, methodized and corrected”
Hume realises his understanding of what morality is, is internal to the society he lives in
liberal philosophers want to avoid being unjust
but Whiggish philosophers want to avoid the unseemly
Hume’s Major Works
Treatise of Human Nature
History of England
Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects
Of the Original Contract
+we look at minor work
argues the very idea of a social contract is unworkable
Of the Original Contract: Hume rejects Locke’s Property Theory
he says that property is determined by rules internal to a convention of justice
thus, the convention of property is inseparable from the convention of govt
similar to Hobbes who believes the creation of the sovereign creates property
Hume criticises the idea of government by consent
“We hold these truth to be self-evident…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” - US DoI
argues it not possible to base the govt on the consent of all the people; a more realistic theory is needed
Hume gives both empirical evidence and a priori arguments that no social contract exists
he says neither princes nor subjects believe consent is justification for political power;
they believe they are bound from birth
may seem unrealistic to us because modern govts (including monarchies) do appeal to the consent of the people
yet, things were different in Hume’s time; monarchs had legitimacy based on their claim to the royal bloodline
difference is social contract theory has been taught and implemented into constitutions over the last 250 years e.g. American DoI
social contract theory (whether correct or not) has had very successful PR
Hume makes the same mistake as Rousseau;
he misunderstands Hobbes’ social contract as binding original settlers and their descendants when it doesn’t
Empirical arguments social contract does not exist:
That the origin of the State is conquest
That ppl obey new govts out of fear despite dissatisfaction
if there’s a new govt and people are afraid so they obey, this is a good criticism of Hobbes
but, if they’re afraid of the chaos that would exist without the govt, this is consistent with Hobbes
Even people who think their government is legitimate don't believe their consent is what makes it legitimate
not as true now as back then
he says the most extensive democracy in history in Athens had the consent of around 10% of its people (to his knowledge)
modern democracies have the consent of at least the majority
he says presence does not imply tacit consent
Socrates argued this explicitly in Crito; since he stayed, he had to follow the laws
Locke alludes to this;
Hume says leaving the country is not easy enough to make staying an implication of consent
argued that when people leave the country as colonists, their govt usually follows them e.g. English settlers in American colonies
he says people who do give express consent are the people whose loyalty is most suspect
in reference to immigrants who go through the naturalisation process;
they expressly consent to live under that govt but are always suspected of disloyalty in times of conflict, war, recession etc.
A priori arguments that
contractarian; someone who uses social contract theory
their argument is that we are under obligation to obey no law except that which we have consented
Hume counters saying if we are under no obligation, why are we bound to observe our promises
e.g. with Hobbes why is following a contract a natural responsibility but not killing other isn’t
another mistaken criticism he makes is;
the existence of an enforceable contract presupposes the existence of a sovereign
but, Hobbes is very aware of that;
when you bring sovereignty into existence, the social contract appears together at the same time
he says that moral reasoning must be suspect if it leads to opinion so wide of the general practice of mankind;
e.g. humanity, for most of its history, had no thought of a social contract justifying government until Hobbes’ theory became popularised
What justifies duty to obey the government?
Hobbes says because we should keep our word; we signed a contract
Hume responds “I readily answer, because society could not otherwise exist.”
he says we need government; consent has nothing to do with it
Social Contract theory | Hume’s theory |
· Alternative to the state (i.e. the SoN) is bad · Need the state to make it better · Necessity implies consent · Consent justifies the state | · Alternative to the state (unnamed) is bad · Need the state to make it better · · Necessity justifies the state w/o consent |
Immanuel Kant on social contract theory
we cannot ever have 100% agreement for the govt; it is unrealistic, sometimes we get 51%
but social contract theory promises/ assumes 100%
Kant held that every rational being had both an innate right to freedom and a duty to enter a civil condition governed by the social contract in order to realize and preserve that freedom
Kant says because the state of nature is bad for you and everyone else, you have a duty to try to get out of it and form a state
therefore we don't need the literal consent of everyone because we have the aspect of duty;
the state needs to be good enough that any reasonable, well-informed, rational individual would consent
treat the unreasonable as signatories
this Kantian view has dominated social contract theory ever since
A Kantian interpretation of Socrates
the state protects you and fosters your life
any reasonable person who accepts those benefits can see they owe the state their allegiance as if they made a contract
you don't have to obey if it asks you to disobey your God
but if you can't convince the state to accept what you do, you have to accept its punishments
A Kantian interpretation of Hobbes
without the state, there would be great violence and suffering;
so we’re all safer with the state
therefore; a rational, reasonable, well-informed person would consent to almost any state that protects them
thus; we can assume that almost any state has the consent of all reasonable citizens (and the better, more reasonable parts of the unreasonable)
A Kantian interpretation of Locke
without the state, you would have to protect your rights yourself
this would inevitably cause some inconveniences, conflicts, or poverty
therefore a rational, reasonable person would consent to a state that protects people's rights better than they could themselves in the SoN
but, reasonable people would not consent to a state that does not protect their rights better than they could on their own in the SoN
thus, there is a right to rebel, but only if enough reasonable people think the state is being unreasonable
A Kantian interpretation of Rousseau
a true SoN with no society may have never existed;
if it did, it would not be naturally free;
it would lack the possibilities of civilisation to get the benefits of society without sacrificing freedom of the hypothetical SoN
we need to make the people sovereign at all times;
that will substitute natural freedom giving all people a different kind of freedom
but still make them as free as before