Hume's Deep Anti-Contractarianism

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Hume Studies Pub Date : 2022-06-08 DOI:10.1353/hms.2022.0006
Sebastian Bender
{"title":"Hume's Deep Anti-Contractarianism","authors":"Sebastian Bender","doi":"10.1353/hms.2022.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Hume is an avowed critic of contractarianism. He opposes the idea that a legitimate government is based on an \"original contract\" or on the consent of those who are governed. Most scholars assume, though, that his criticisms apply only to a limited range of contractarian theories, namely to theories according to which actual contractors reach an actual agreement. Theories on which the agreement in question is understood in hypothetical or counterfactual terms, however, are oftentimes seen as being compatible with Hume's views. Against such interpretations, this paper shows that Hume rejects all contractarian theories, including hypothetical ones. It argues, first, that Hume employs a so far unacknowledged empiricist debunking strategy against contractarianism; if successful, this strategy undermines all variants of contractarianism. Second, it shows that the Humean conception of the state of nature (a topic that has received virtually no scholarly attention) is incompatible with hypothetical contractarianism. Finally, it argues that Hume rejects contractarianism in part because he anticipates a line of criticism which nowadays is often leveled against so-called ideal theory. On Hume's view, the agreements reached by highly idealized contractors are of little relevance to the non-ideal individuals in the actual world.","PeriodicalId":29761,"journal":{"name":"Hume Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hume Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2022.0006","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:Hume is an avowed critic of contractarianism. He opposes the idea that a legitimate government is based on an "original contract" or on the consent of those who are governed. Most scholars assume, though, that his criticisms apply only to a limited range of contractarian theories, namely to theories according to which actual contractors reach an actual agreement. Theories on which the agreement in question is understood in hypothetical or counterfactual terms, however, are oftentimes seen as being compatible with Hume's views. Against such interpretations, this paper shows that Hume rejects all contractarian theories, including hypothetical ones. It argues, first, that Hume employs a so far unacknowledged empiricist debunking strategy against contractarianism; if successful, this strategy undermines all variants of contractarianism. Second, it shows that the Humean conception of the state of nature (a topic that has received virtually no scholarly attention) is incompatible with hypothetical contractarianism. Finally, it argues that Hume rejects contractarianism in part because he anticipates a line of criticism which nowadays is often leveled against so-called ideal theory. On Hume's view, the agreements reached by highly idealized contractors are of little relevance to the non-ideal individuals in the actual world.
休谟的深层反契约主义
摘要:休谟是一位公认的反传统主义批评家。他反对合法政府建立在“原始合同”或被统治者同意的基础上的观点。然而,大多数学者认为,他的批评只适用于有限范围的契约理论,即实际承包商达成实际协议的理论。然而,用假设或反事实的术语来理解所讨论的协议的理论通常被视为与休谟的观点相一致。与这些解释相反,本文表明休谟拒绝接受所有的契约主义理论,包括假设的理论。它认为,首先,休谟采用了一种迄今为止尚未被承认的经验主义的反契约主义的揭穿策略;如果成功的话,这一策略会破坏所有反传统主义的变体。其次,它表明了休谟的自然状态概念(一个几乎没有受到学术关注的话题)与假设的矛盾主义是不相容的。最后,它认为,休谟拒绝契约主义,部分原因是他预见到了一条批评路线,而如今这种批评路线往往是针对所谓的理想理论的。在休谟看来,高度理想化的契约者所达成的协议与现实世界中的非理想个体几乎没有关联。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信