Test Drive | Page 63

55 Hume: Consent and the Original Contract CRAIG HENDERSON1 This essay will first seek to endorse the proposals of the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-76) against social contract theories. It will defend his dismissal of the notion of consent as an endorsement for the existence of a social contract as necessary for state legitimacy. Hume agrees that government is legitimate but, rather than being founded on consent, it is based on a foundation of tradition and trial and error through which citizens come to realise that to be governed brings about the best results for everyone. Finally, we shall see how Hume judges the notion of promising, specifically in relation to the social contract, as devoid of value and unnecessary. We should first note that Hume shares the opinion of other social contract theorists that government is good for us. For example, Hardin (2007: 105) writes that, “in essence, Hume and [Thomas] Hobbes share the view that universal egoism… can be channelled by government to produce universal welfare and, that egoists, for their own benefit, would therefore want government”. Precisely what Hume disagrees with, however, is the claim that current governments obtain their legitimacy through the existence of a social contract that is founded on the consent (tacit or otherwise) of the population. Instead, Hume argues that governments are founded in actuality, as they ensure the greatest utility of people in society. In relation to this, it is first important to explore how Hume, in Of the Original Contract,2 contends that modern governments do not come to power through a voluntary agreement between the populace and the ruler. Throughout this important book, Hume attacks the idea that government is founded totally on the wilful consent of the people which is secured through some form of Craig Henderson is a final year Philosophy undergraduate. Any errors are the author’s own. The author can be contacted at [email protected]. 2 The copy quoted here is a 1987 edition of the original text printed in 1748. 1