Justice In David Hume's Definition Of Justice

In David Hume’s book, Moral Philosophy, he describes his definition of what justice is in the section “Of justice”. Hume’s view of the definition of justice is that it is the rules of property. The rules of property can be compared to the rules of baseball. These rules are circumstantial, are able to changed, and are useful. This is contrary to John Locke who believes that the definition of justice is equivalent to the laws of physics. The laws of physics can be defined as eternal, unable to be changed, and always applicable. Hume believes that if justice were purely a rational law of nature that it would apply to all cases. According to Hume, because justice does not apply to all cases, it cannot be a purely rational law of nature. In order for justice to be a purely rational law of nature, it needs to apply to all cases and situations. Hume’s has seven arguments for why he believes justice does not apply to all cases. Hume’s provides seven arguments that testify how and why justice cannot

be a purely rational law of nature. Extreme abundance, scarcity and altruism, and also the Hobbesian State of Nature, a Mythical Golden Age, and the act of rapaciousness are the seven arguments that Hume abides by.
Hume believes that in the case of extreme abundance justice would not apply because there is nearly an infinite amount of property and property rights would not need to be applicable. With extreme abundance, every individual can have as much property as they want
Okonkwo 2
because there is an over-abundance of it. There is no need for property rules when all individuals are able to have an infinite amount of property. Establishing property rights when every person can have as much of something as they want is useless. Justice needs to be to apply to all cases in order for it to be a purely rational law of nature. Justice does not apply in the case of extreme abundance, so therefore it cannot be a purely rational law of nature. Hume’s argument of extreme abundance is correct.
Hume also argues that in a Hobbesian State of Nature justice would not be applicable because there is extreme self-interest. In a Hobbesian State of Nature, no one necessarily cares about anyone but themselves. Because individuals are solely focused on themselves and their own self-interest, there will be little to no respect for others property. Establishing property rights when every person is only considered with their own property and lacks respect for others property is useless. Justice does not apply in this case and therefore justice cannot be a purely rational law of nature. Since justice does not apply in this particular case of living in a Hobbesian State of Nature, this shows that justice does not apply in all cases, and therefore it cannot be a purely rational law of nature. Hume’s argument of a Hobbesian State of Nature is correct.
According to Hume in the case of extreme scarcity, justice would not apply because there is not enough property for all individuals and therefore property rights would not be necessary. With extreme scarcity, there is little to no property for anyone and establishing property rights for property that is nearly nonexistent is useless. There is no need for property rules when all individuals don’t have enough or any property at all. Justice does not apply in this case and therefore justice cannot be a purely rational law of nature. Because justice is not applicable in this case of extreme scarcity, it does not apply to all cases and therefore justice cannot be a purely rational law of nature. Hume’s argument of extreme scarcity is correct.
Okonkwo 3
While I do agree with David Hume’s arguments, I do feel as though the cases that are presented are unrealistic and therefore make his argument unreliable and erratic.

The cases that Hume presents are not reliable support for his argument. For example, it is nearly impossible to have an infinite or extreme amount of abundance. These rare and unrealistic situations dramatically seek to prove his argument and lack any actuality or practicality. If Hume’s purpose is to tell his readers about how justice works in the real world he needs to provide realistic examples that can be applicable to real world situations. His argument is not illustrated realistically if he uses imaginary or erratic scenarios to get his point across. To make his argument stronger, Hume’s should have considered examples that can be applicable to real life situations. Using these dramatic cases like extreme abundance, altruism, or scarcity as an argument is not realistic and should not be used as his

support.