from Increase resolution on the concept of deliberation Critique of the social contract by Hume, a contemporary of Rousseau
I’m told Hume was a contemporary of Rousseau’s and was critical of the concept of the social contract. Elaborate on this.
David Hume, a philosopher contemporary of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, took a critical position on social contract theory. Hume’s criticism of the social contract challenged the idea of a “social contract” as espoused by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Rousseau, and was particularly critical of the following points.
-
criticism of the historical reality of the social contract
- Hume questioned the existence of a “contract” as the social contract theory theoretically asserts. Whereas Hobbes and Rousseau posited a “state of nature” from which governments and societies were formed by a “social compact,” Hume saw this as a historical fiction. He argued that there was no evidence of an actual “state of nature” or a definite “social contract” in human history, and that governments were actually formed by more complex factors such as violence, war, and coercion of power. In other words, he criticized the social contract as an oversimplified myth as an explanation for the formation of society.
-
human nature and the process of social formation
- Hume believed that humans form societies based on customs and habits rather than on social contracts based on rational judgment. In his philosophy, humans are not rational by nature, but rather are driven by emotions and customs. For this reason, he believed that the formation of governments and societies was the result of a gradual process of agreement among people for their mutual benefit and not the sudden creation of some contract.
- In particular, Hume questioned the concept of legitimacy by “consent.” While social contract theorists believe that the legitimacy of government is based on the consent of its citizens, Hume noted that actual political regimes function even without the consent of their citizens, and the concept of legitimacy by contract does not necessarily apply to real society.
-
origin and legitimacy of government
- Hume argued that the legitimacy of government and the justification of power is based on “usefulness (utility),” not contract. According to him, the purpose of government was to maintain order and peace in society and to protect the safety and property of people, and the justification for the exercise of power to that end was judged by its usefulness.
- Social contract theory seeks the origin and legitimacy of government in individual liberty and consent, but Hume refuted this and held that actual government is formed and maintained in terms of utility rather than consensus. In other words, he believed that the existence of government “is justified by its utility and function, not by consensus.
-
conflict between Hume and Rousseau
- While Rousseau focused on the “general will” and emphasized consensus building for the benefit of the whole through the social contract, Hume was skeptical of this idealistic conception of the contract. In particular, Hume opposed Rousseau’s idealistic concept of a “social contract from the state of nature” because he took a more realistic view of human nature and believed that governments and societies have been formed based on feelings and customs.
- Hume believed that the stability of government and society was based not on individual rational decisions or contracts, but on customs, power relations, and social utility developed over a long history. For this reason, he was critical of the ideological framework of the social contract as an explanation for the origins of politics and society.
summary Hume’s criticism is that social contract theory overly idealizes human nature and the process of social formation, taking the realist position that society and government are formed and maintained on the basis of custom and utility, not contract and consent. This offered a new perspective on the structure of society and politics, while at odds with Rousseau’s theory of the “general will” and the social contract.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/ルソーと同世代のヒュームによる社会契約批判 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.