Hume Vs Locke

3522 Words15 Pages
Hume vs. The Social Contract Theory Hume’s main claims in “Of the Original Contract”: i) The idea that one’s duty of allegiance to one’s government stems from one’s having consented to it is false, because its consequences are absurd. If it were correct, then few would have any such duty, because few ever give genuine and voluntary consent to their governments. ii) The duty of allegiance to one’s government derives from utility, not agreement, consent, or promise. The reason why one has a duty to obey the government (when one does) is that such obedience maximizes society’s total utility. Hume was a Tory. The idea that legitimate government depends on the consent of the governed was popular among the Whigs. At the very beginning of his essay, Hume seems to agree with the social contract idea if it is understood as a thesis about how the very first governments arose in the distant past. But defenders of the social contract idea seem to think that present government depends on a contract among the people. Hume doesn’t explicitly do this, but we can distinguish two different ways of understanding this idea: i) as a nonnormative thesis of political sociology, and ii) as a normative thesis of political philosophy. According to i), just as it is a fact of political sociology that people tend to get very angry whenever they believe that their rights have been violated, it is also a fact that people believe (rightly or wrongly) that the duty to obey government derives from consent. Hume’s reply is that this is not a fact at all; it is demonstrably false. “…We find everywhere princes who claim their subjects as their property and assert their independent right of sovereignty, from conquest or succession. We find also, everywhere, subjects, who acknowledge this right in their prince, and suppose themselves born under obligations of obedience to a
Open Document