IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pophec/v11y2012i3p302-321.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hume and mutual advantage

Author

Listed:
  • John Salter

Abstract

Hume’s theory of justice is commonly regarded by contemporary theorists of justice as a theory of justice as mutual advantage. It is thus widely thought to manifest all the unattractive features of such theories: in particular, it is thought to endorse the exclusion of people with serious mental or physical disabilities from the scope and protection of justice and to justify the European expropriation of the lands of defenceless aboriginal people. I argue that this reading of Hume is mistaken. Mutual advantage is only part of Hume’s theory, the part that explains the origins of the institutions of justice in a general sense (property and promise keeping), and it is bracketed off from those parts of Hume’s theory that explain who is included within the scope of justice, how much each receives, and why and to whom we have a duty to be just. The interpretation of Hume’s theory as a theory of justice as mutual advantage not only fails to convey Hume’s complex purposes, but it portrays Hume’s theory of justice as the kind of theory he was most concerned to refute.

Suggested Citation

  • John Salter, 2012. "Hume and mutual advantage," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 11(3), pages 302-321, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:11:y:2012:i:3:p:302-321
    DOI: 10.1177/1470594X11433738
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X11433738
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1470594X11433738?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barry, Brian, 2010. "David Hume as a Social Theorist," Utilitas, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(4), pages 369-392, December.
    2. Moehler, Michael, 2009. "Why Hobbes' State of Nature is Best Modeled by an Assurance Game," Utilitas, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 297-326, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nick Cowen, 2018. "Robust Against Whom?," Advances in Austrian Economics, in: Austrian Economics: The Next Generation, volume 23, pages 91-111, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    2. Brian Kogelmann & Benjamin Ogden, 2017. "Enough and as Good: a Formal Model of Lockean First Appropriation," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2017-13, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Justin P Bruner, 2015. "Diversity, tolerance, and the social contract," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 14(4), pages 429-448, November.
    4. Erik W. Matson & Daniel B. Klein, 2022. "Convention without convening," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-24, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:11:y:2012:i:3:p:302-321. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.