A Study on Hume’s Theory of Justice: Evolution, Utilitarianism, and the Social Contract Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Philosophie vorgelegt von Fior Mota de Andrade, Pedro an der Geisteswissenschaftliche Sektion Fachbereich Philosophie Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 10.07.2020 Referent: Prof. Dr. Peter Stemmer Referent: Prof. Dr. Jacob Rosenthal Konstanz, 2020 Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System (KOPS) URL: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-2-v9mugxliogo28 Summary Introduction………………………………………………….………………1 Chapter 1 - Hume’s Moral Theory and the Virtue of Justice…………………7 1.1 Some Preliminary Remarks………………………………………..…7 1.2 Virtue, Vice, and the General Point of View………………………...9 1.2.1 Definition of Virtue and Vice……………………………………...9 1.2.2 Actions, Mental Qualities, and Character Traits……………….…11 1.2.3 The General Point of View……………………………………….14 1.2.4 Moral Sentiments………………………………………………....20 1.3 Sources of Moral Approbation and Disapprobation………………..23 1.4 Sympathy and Benevolence………………………………………...34 1.5 The Role of the Virtue of Justice…………………………………...42 1.6 Three Lines of Interpretation………………………………….……57 Chapter 2 - The Background Conditions for the Convention of Justice…….62 2.1 The Background Conditions for the Convention of Justice………….62 2.1.1 Instrumental Rationality…………………………………………..62 2.1.2 Artificiality……………………………………………………..…69 2.1.3 Circumstances of Justice…………………….................................75 2.2 Analysis of the Pre-Conventional Structure of Interaction……..…..88 2.2.1 The Humean State of Nature…………………………………..….88 2.2.2 The Stag Hunt……………………………………………..………96 2.2.3 Solutions for the Stag Hunt…………………………………..…..102 Chapter 3 - Hume’s Convention of Justice……………………………......113 3.1 The Motive of Justice…………………………..……………….….113 3.2 The Convention of Justice……………………………………..…..122 3.2.1 Two Definitions of the Convention of Justice………………...….122 3.2.2 The Rules of the Convention of Justice………………………......129 3.3 Hume’s Convention of Justice, Evolution, Utilitarianism, and the Social Contract………………………………………………......134 3.3.1 The Evolutionary Interpretation………………………………....134 3.3.2 The Rule-Utilitarian Interpretation………………………………141 3.3.3 The Contractarian Interpretation…………………………….…...152 3.3.3.1 Original, Explicit, and Tacit Contractarianism…………...…....152 3.3.3.2 Hypothetical Contractarianism………………………………...157 3.3.3.3 The General Scheme of Justice………………………………...161 Chapter 4 - The Rules of Private Property…………………………...……172 4.1 The Initial Distribution………………………………………….....172 4.1.1 Immediate or Present Possession……………………………..….172 4.1.2 Original Acquisition………………………………………….….176 4.1.3 Equality……………………………………………………….…179 4.1.4 Desert…………………………………………………………....182 4.1.5 Natural Distribution…………………………………………..….186 4.1.6 Utility and Imagination……………………………………..……189 4.1.7 The Initial Distribution, Evolution, Utilitarianism, and the Social Contract……………………………………..……………….….192 4.2 The Transference of Property by Consent…………………...…....196 4.3 Utility and Inequality………………………………………….…..198 4.3.1 The Standard Interpretation……………………………….…….198 4.3.2 Social Inequalities and Negative Effects…………………….….199 4.4 The Redistributive Rule…………………………………….……..205 4.4.1 Hume’s Theory of Property………………………………….….205 4.4.2 The Natural Virtue of Equity……………………………….…...206 4.4.3 Indirect Utility and Rule-Utilitarianism……………….………...208 4.4.4 Redistribution and Contractarianism………………….………...212 Chapter 5 - The Rule of the Obligation of Promises……………….…….221 5.1 Promises and the Natural Law Theory…………………………....221 5.2 Hume’s Critique of the Traditional Theories……………………..226 5.2.1 The Intelligibility and the Moral Obligation of Promise…….…226 5.2.2 Two Objections…………………………………………………234 5.3 The Logic of Promises: A Game-Theoretic Analysis…………….238 5.3.1 Coordination Promises and Exchange Promises………………..238 5.3.2 The Farmer’s Dilemma…………………………………….……243 5.3.3 The Infinitely Repeated Farmer’s Dilemma………………….…246 5.4 Promises, Evolution, Utilitarianism, and the Social Contract….…253 Chapter 6 - Naturalism and Hume’s Theory of Justice………………….265 6.1 Hume’s Naturalism……………………………………………….265 6.2 The Descriptive and the Normative in Hume…………………….270 6.3 The Public and the Private Utility in Hume…………………….....275 6.4 Degrees of Plausibility and the Interpretation of Hume’s Theory of Justice…………………………………………………..…………279 6.5 A Final Remark……………………………..……………………..289 Conclusion..................................................................................................295 References...................................................................................................300 Abstract This study aims to provide the correct interpretation of Hume’s theory of justice. The study on the nature of justice is of the utmost importance for comprehending Hume’s moral philosophy, for I argue that the virtue of justice is the central concept of his moral theory. In this sense, any plausible interpretation of this moral theory must take into account the nature of the virtue of justice as a priority in Hume. In the tradition, Hume scholars have come up with three main lines of interpretation of Hume’s theory of justice: i) the evolutionary interpretation, ii) the rule-utilitarian interpretation, and iii) the contractarian interpretation. Each of these lines of interpretation emphasizes a particular perspective adopted by Hume to explain the virtue of justice in his theory. And each of the three lines of interpretation makes some plausible points and relevant contributions to a better comprehension of the different parts of Hume’s theory of justice. To settle the interpretative dispute between the three lines of interpretation of Hume’s theory of justice, I assess them by their degrees of plausibility in face of the textual evidence in Hume’s work. In this way, I attempt to develop a correct interpretation of Hume’s theory of justice from the most plausible line of interpretation ascertained by this study. Keywords: Hume, Theory of Justice, Evolution, Utilitarianism, Contractarianism. Deutsche Zusammenfassung Diese Studie zielt darauf ab, die korrekte Interpretation von Humes Theorie der Gerechtigkeit zu liefern. Die Studie der Natur der Gerechtigkeit ist von größter Bedeutung für das Verständnis von Humes Moralphilosophie, denn ich argumentiere, dass die Tugend der Gerechtigkeit das zentrale Konzept seiner Moraltheorie ist. In diesem Sinne muss jede plausible Interpretation dieser Moraltheorie die Natur der Tugend der Gerechtigkeit als Priorität in Hume berücksichtigen. In der Tradition haben Hume-Gelehrte drei Hauptinterpretationslinien für Humes Theorie der Gerechtigkeit entwickelt: i) die evolutionäre Interpretation, ii) die regel-utilitaristische Interpretation und iii) die kontraktualistische Interpretation. Jede dieser Interpretationslinien betont eine bestimmte Perspektive, die Hume einnimmt, um die Tugend der Gerechtigkeit in seiner Theorie zu erklären. Und jede der drei Interpretationslinien liefert einige plausible Punkte und relevante Beiträge zum besseren Verständnis der verschiedenen Teile von Humes Gerechtigkeitstheorie. Um die Interpretationskontroverse zwischen den drei Interpretationslinien von Humes Gerechtigkeitstheorie aufzuklären, bewerte ich sie anhand ihrer Plausibilitätsgrade angesichts der Textbeweise in Humes Werk. Auf diese Weise versuche ich, eine korrekte Interpretation von Humes Theorie der Gerechtigkeit aus der plausibelsten Interpretationslinie zu entwickeln, die durch diese Studie festgestellt wurde. Stichwörter: Hume, Theorie der Gerechtigkeit, Evolution, Utilitarismus, Vertragstheorie. Acknowledgments I would like to express my sincere thanks to all those who helped me to conclude this doctoral dissertation. First of all, I would like to thank my professor supervisor, Herr Prof. Peter Stemmer, for all the care and patience with which he guided me and for pushing me as hard as possible to improve. Without his guidance, I would not have been able to complete this doctoral dissertation. I would also like to thank my second supervisor, Herr Prof. Jacob Rosenthal, for the valuable classes and lessons I attended. They have sparked new ideas for my doctoral dissertation. Finally, I would like to thank Herr Prof. Marcelo de Araújo, who has accompanied me since I was an undergraduate in Brazil. I thank him for having read some of my chapters and for helping me a little bit with my English. Secondly, I would like to thank my close friends who have either been with me personally or with whom I have had the pleasure of exchanging ideas throughout my time in Germany. I would like to thank André Gustavo da Rosa Ribeiro, Noriko Kutsuna, Fabian Michael Stöhr, Kurt Halter, Takayuki Kurihara, Thiago Lucena de Macedo Guedes, Gilmar do Nascimento and Ali. Third, I would like to thank my family, who has always supported me emotionally during all my life, but especially in this period. Thank you very much, Martiniano Mota de Andrade Neto, Ione Terezinha Fior, Maria do Socorro Araújo do Amaral, and Artemisa Gouvêa Mota de Andrade. Finally, I would like to thank the Deutsche Akademische Austauschdienst (DAAD) and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for having financed my studies during this long period. Without the funding, I would never have been able to start this project in the first place. 1 Introduction This study was inspired by the interpretative controversy over Hume’s theory of justice. More specifically, it was inspired by a paper published by Gauthier in 1979, which