ARTIFICIAL(paper-person-dead entity's) is in green
living is in red
===========================================
Original Article: "A Treatise of Human Nature" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatise_on_Human_Nature
A Treatise of Human Nature is a book by Scottish philosopher David Hume, first published in 1739–1740
Section I: Is Justice Natural or Artificial?
Being natural and unnatural applies both for vices and virtues. In fact, not all kinds of virtues are natural. Justice, for example, is not a natural virtue.
Justice emerges from the circumstances and from the necessity of mankind. Rules of justice are artificial and are made up by education and human convention. By providing conjunction of forces, partition of employment, mutual succour, society turns out to be advantageous. Men become aware of the advantages of the society also in relation to the preservation of their goods and stipulate a convention. Once this convention has taken force, the concepts of justice/injustice - property/rights/obligation start taking consistency (theory).
Section II: Of the Origin of Justice and Property
The origin of justice is strictly connected with property. It follows that justice does not derive from public interest, as it is not an immediate concern for human beings; justice is not founded on reason, but on the impressions of men, caused by artifice (fakery).
In fact, a single act of justice is contrary to public and private interest, if taken singularly, but the scheme is overall beneficial both for the society and for the individual. The idea of virtue is often associated with justice and the idea of vice with injustice (Plato, Aristotle etc.). At the beginning, men are induced to follow justice for a matter of private interest. Sympathy with public interest is the source of moral approbation. Public esteem for justice increases our own esteem towards it.
Section III: On the Rule of Property
Why are particular goods assigned to particular persons? The criterion stability-utility is not good enough, as it could be claimed for more than one person at the same time. Such principle grounds on the belief that everyone continues to enjoy what he is at present possessor of. But, in the long run, every injustice would be authorized and rewarded. This criterion can work well for a society to get settled, but after that, other circumstances should be taken under consideration:
1. Occupation coincides with first possession and, as it has been shown, is quite controversional at the longer term
2. Long Possession, when time gives title of property of an object
3. Accession, when objects are linked in an intimate manner with other objects that are already in somebody's property and are inferior to them (such as: fruits of the tree, but not fishes-sea)
4. Succession, which is a natural right: men's possession should pass to those that are dearest to them.
Section IV: Transference of Property by Consent
Sometimes, the above-mentioned rules do not sort out all the inconveniences that derives from possession. Possession and property should always remain stable except when the possessor agrees to transfer part of his/her property to another person. The exchange and commerce of goods is based on this assumption.
Section V: Of the Obligations of Promises
The rule of morality is not natural. In fact, a promise would not be intelligible and would not have moral obligation before human convention had established it. A promise does not generate naturally an obligation. The obligation is there only when it is established by convention (same as justice). Promises are human inventions that are founded on the necessity and interest of the society. Self-interest is the first motive behind the performance of the promise.
Section VI: Some more Reflections on Justice and Injustice
There are three fundamental laws of justice:
1. stability of: possession
2. transference by: consent
3. performance of: promises
Society is absolutely necessary for men and these three laws are necessary for the support of the society, but they are artificial and created by men.
There are some arguments that can support this statement.
- Justice is defined as the constant and perpetual will of giving everybody his/her due. This presupposes the right of property to be antecedent to justice, but it is a fallace opinion. As a matter of fact, property is not a quality of the object-1, but it is the relation of the object-1 with a rational human being. It is the external relation of the object-1 that causes property-2. The concept of justice is linked with the concept of property.
- Rights, obligations and property do not admit gradation (either all or nothing). Justice and injustice are not susceptible of degree, therefore they are not naturally virtuous or vicious.
- Mind is most often determined by present motives, not by general rules.
Moreover, the distinction between justice and injustice lies on two different foundation: self-interest, as it is impossible to live in society without rules; morality, the interest is common to all mankind and all men receive a pleasure from things going in accordance to justice.
The sense of honor and duty are other artifices (fakery) that derive from this relation.
Section VII: On the Origin of Government
Men are governed by their own interest and they tend to give advantage to their particular interest over common good. The remedy to this situation should proceed from the consent of men.
But, since men cannot change their nature, the solution should be sought in the circumstances. Justice should become the nearest interest at least for few people, who would have a direct interest in the execution of justice. Kings, civil magistrates, governors, in a word, government is the remedy. Thanks to government, men can taste the mutual assistance that society provides. Bridges, harbours, streets are built. Even if they are beyond the immediate interest of any man, taken singularly, they are for the common good.
Section VIII: On the Source of Allegiance
Government is a very advantageous invention, as it overlooks on the implementation of the three laws. When men understand the advantage of having a government, they would convene together, choose their magistrates and promise them obedience.
However, the act of promising obedience is something that has happened at the beginning and is the original source of the first obligation towards the government. But after that, the obligation towards the government is based on self-interest, in particular:
a) to preserve peace and order in the society and
b) to preserve mutual trust and confidence in the offices of life.
Civil duties detach from promises and acquire an independent authority. The moral obligation to submit to the government is not based on consent. As a matter of fact, the government has authority also on those who never consented to it. It follows that the moral obligation derives from the fact that everyone submit to its authority. Promise can definitely reinforce the obligation to obedience, but it is not the source of authority.
Section IX: Of the Measures of Allegiance
The social contract theory wanted to establish a noble principle: the submission to the government admits exceptions and tyranny - that is against consent - is sufficient to free the subject from all kinds of allegiance. According to this theory, men are in origin in a state of liberty and decide to give up their liberties in exchange of protection and security and when this condition is not fulfilled, they are at liberty to break their contract.
The concept is that whoever has taken authority over people should produce some advantages for them, otherwise he/she should be expected that the obedience would be sooner than later withdrawn. Hume argues that the conclusion is right, but the principle in itself is erroneous. By employing different premises,
Hume will try to reach the same conclusions and provide an alternative to the traditional social contract theory. Based on his assumptions, the obligation does not derive from the promise, but from the motive that spurred men to conclude the agreement, that is, their self-interest in security and protection. The obligation towards the government ceases when the interest ceases.
Therefore, the obedience to the authority should not be passive: government is a man's invention for his self-interest and the interest of the society. When the governor removes the interest, he also removes the natural obligation of obedience. It follows that men may lawfully resist the government without committing injustice.
Section X: Of the Object of Allegiance
The doctrine of resistance should only be applied in very few cases and when the advantages of subverting a government outweight the disadvantages. This must be an exception to the common rule, which bids that government are owed obedience.
What makes a governor lawful depends on the source of the authority: - long possession, which gives authority to almost all government of the world; - present possession, as long as it preserves peace and public interest; - conquest, see above; - succession, when the monarch dies and his heirs comes to the throne; - positive laws, when the authority holder is determined by positive law (fundamental law)
Section XI: Laws of Nations
Once civil governments have been established, there arises a new set of duties among neighbouring countries, that is, the laws of nations. The three fundamental rules of justice (stability of possession, performance of promises and transfer of possession by consent) are valid for every man, including for kings and governors, but their system of morals is freer than for the individual. It has the same extent, but not the same force. In fact, it could be broken in case this would result into a benefit for the kingdom. The interest in keeping the laws of justice is not so strong as for individuals, therefore the moral obligation will be weaker, too.
Section XII: On Chastity and Modesty
The difference in force but not in extent between the obligation of kings and individual is explained by the following example: chastity and modesty are agreeable characteristics both for men and women, but they are more expedient for women, as their interest is greater than men's. The moral obligation of women is greater than men's.
