Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:52:39.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hume and Conservatism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Sheldon S. Wolin
Sheldon S. Wolin
Affiliation:
University of California(Berkeley)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although David Hume's stature as a philosopher has rarely been questioned, his claims as a political theorist have fared less well. Jefferson showed deep hostility towards Hume's ideas, while John Adams could find agreement with only a few points. Later opinion has been less vehement but still reserved. Thomas Huxley thought Hume's political writings suggestive, but on the whole marred by an unabashed desire for literary success. In Sir Leslie Stephen's judgment Hume was guilty of a “cynical conservatism” that was at once superficial and unhistorical.

More recent studies, such as those of Sabine and Halévy, have established more securely Hume's place in political thought but have left certain ambiguities. Sabine has coupled Hume with Burke as an opponent of eighteenth-century rationalism, while Halévy viewed him as a forerunner of the “philosophical radicalism” of Bentham, Adam Smith, James Mill, and Ricardo. To have fathered squabbling children is always something of an embarrassment, but particularly so when one is, like Hume, temperamentally averse to taking sides. It is true, nonetheless, that if a temporary distinction is made between Hume's doctrine and his influence, it is possible to maintain that his influence worked in two quite different directions. His inquires into causation, the role of reason, and the nature of moral judgments helped eventually to undermine the natural law structure of eighteenth-century liberalism, while his emphasis on utility as the test of institutions contributed an important ingredient to Benthamite liberalism.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , December 1954 , pp. 999 - 1016
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Works of John Adams, ed. Adams, Charles Francis, 10 vols. (Boston, 1865), Vol. 4, pp. 466–68Google Scholar; Koch, Adrienne and Peden, William, Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams (New York, 1946), p. 120Google Scholar; The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Lipscomb, Andrew A. and Bergh, Albert E., 20 vols. (Washington, 1903), Vol. 11, p. 223Google Scholar; Vol. 12, pp. 405–7; Vol. 16, pp. 44, 125–26. John Stuart Mill declared Hume to be “the profoundest negative thinker on record,” Mill on Bentham and Coleridge, ed. Leavis, F. R. (New York, 1950), p. 43Google Scholar.

2 Huxley, Thomas, Hume (New York, n.d.), pp. 10–11Google Scholar.

3 Stephen, Leslie, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 3rd ed. (New York, 1949), Vol. 2, p. 181Google Scholar.

4 Sabine, George H., A History of Political Theory, 2nd ed. (New York, 1950), pp. 597–606Google Scholar; Halévy, Elie, Growth of Philosophic Radicalism (London, 1934), pp. 9–13, 42-45, 131–33Google Scholar; Plamenatz, John, The English Utilitarians (Oxford, 1949), pp. 22–44Google Scholar; Hume's Moral and Political Philosophy, ed. Aiken, Henry D. (New York, 1948)Google Scholar, Introduction; David Hume, Theory of Politics, ed. Watkins, Frederick M. (Edinburgh, 1951)Google Scholar, Introduction.

5 The Political Thought of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, ed. White, R. J. (London, 1938), p. 93Google Scholar.

6 A Treatise of Human Nature, Bk. III, Pt. I, sec. 1. Hereafter this will be cited as Human Nature.

7 An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, sec. 5. Hereafter this will be cited as Human Understanding.

8 Human Nature, Bk. I, Pt. III, secs. 7–8.

9 Human Nature, Bk. II, Pt. III, sec. 3.

10 An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Open Court ed. (La Salle, Ill., n.d.), Appendix I, p. 131Google Scholar.

11 Human Nature, Bk. III, Pt. I, sec. 2. See also the discussion in MacNabb, D. G. C., David Hume, His Theory of Knowledge and Morality (London, 1951), pp. 159 ff.Google Scholar

12 Human Nature, Bk. III, Pt. II, sec. 1.

13 Human Understanding, sec. V, pts. I–II.

14 Human Nature, Bk. I, Pt. III, sec. 8.

15 Passmore, John Arthur, Hume's Intentions (Cambridge, 1952), p. 10Google Scholar.

16 On this point see Randall, John H., The Making of the Modern Mind, 2nd ed. (Boston, 1940), pp. 334 ff.Google Scholar; Cassirer, Ernst, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment (Princeton, 1951), pp. 253 ff.Google Scholar

17 “Of Civil Liberty”, The Philosophical Works of David Hume, ed. Green, T. H. and Grose, T. H., 4 vols. (London, 1875), Vol. 3, p. 156Google Scholar. Hereafter this will be cited as Works.

18 Human Nature, Introduction.

19 “Of Some Remarkable Customs”, Works, Vol. 3, p. 374Google Scholar.

20 “That Politics may be reduced to a Science”, Works, Vol. 3, p. 99Google Scholar.

21 Cassirer, , Philosophy of the Enlightenment, pp. 13–16Google Scholar.

22 Human Nature, Bk. III, Pt. II, sec. 2.

23 Ibid., sec. 6.

24 “Of the First Principles of Government”, Works, Vol. 3, pp. 110 ff.Google Scholar

25 “Of the Original Contract”, Works, Vol. 3, p. 456Google Scholar.

26 Human Nature, Bk. III, Pt. II, sec. 3.

27 For a statement about the detached observer, see “Of the Protestant Succession”, Works, Vol. 3, pp. 474–75Google Scholar.

28 “Of the Original Contract”, Works, Vol. 3, p. 452Google Scholar.

29 “That Politics may be reduced to a Science”, Works, Vol. 3, pp. 105–6.Google Scholar

30 Burke, Edmund, Reflections on the French Revolution, Everyman ed. (London, 1910), pp. 38, 170Google Scholar.

31 “Whether the British Government inclines more to Absolute Monarchy, or to a Republic?”, Works, Vol. 3, pp. 124–26Google Scholar.

32 The Complete Works of George Savile, First Marquis of Halifax, ed. Raleigh, Walter (Oxford, 1912), p. 225Google Scholar.

33 “Of Parties in General”, Works, Vol. 3, p. 130Google Scholar.

34 Ibid., pp. 128–30.

35 “Of the Parties of Great Britain”, Works, Vol. 3, p. 139Google Scholar.

36 “That Politics may be reduced to a Science”, Works, Vol. 3, p. 107Google Scholar.

37 “Of the Coalition of Parties”, Works, Vol. 3, pp. 469–70Google Scholar.

38 Ibid., p. 464.

39 Examples of this concept can be found in the following: The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, ed. Scott, Temple, 12 vols. (London, 1898), Vol. 1, pp. 231–235Google Scholar; Hardwicke, Chancellor in Campbell's, Lord John, Lives of the Lord Chancellors, 7 vols., 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, 1851), Vol. 5, p. 127Google Scholar; Parliamentary History of England, ed. Cobbett, William (London, 1813–1820), Vol. 15Google Scholar, cols. 481–82, 506; Vol. 66, cols. 43–44.

40 Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England, ed. Christian, , 4 vols., 12th ed. (London, 1793), Vol. 1, Bk. I, ch. 2, pp. 154–55Google Scholar.

41 E.g., the Act of Settlement, the Regency Bill (1788–89), and the dispute over parliamentary privileges during the Wilkes affair.

42 Holdsworth, William, A History of English Law, 12 vols., 3rd ed. (London, 1922–1938), Vol. 10, p. 55Google Scholar; SirKeir, David, The Constitutional History of Modern Britain, 3rd ed. (London, 1948), pp. 293–99Google Scholar.

43 Holdsworth, p. 464.

44 SirNamier, Lewis B., The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III, 2 vols. (London, 1922)Google Scholar; England in the Age of the American Revolution (London, 1930)Google Scholar; The Parliamentary Papers of John Robinson, 1774–1784, ed. Laprade, William T. (London, 1922)Google Scholar; Pares, Richard, King George III and the Politicians (Oxford, 1953)Google Scholar; Guttridge, George H., English Whiggism and the American Revolution (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1942)Google Scholar.

45 In this connection it should be noted that Burke, for all of his concern for the “nice equipoise” of the Constitution, was unaware of the degree to which the system of “influence” contributed towards that result. See his proposals for “economical reform” designed to implement Dunning's resolution of 1780 which warned against the Crown's system of “influence.” Works, 12 vols. (London, 1815), Vol. 2, pp. 69–70Google Scholar.

46 Hume's criticisms of Harrington are scattered throughout the following essays: “Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth,” “On the Independence of Parliament,” and “Whether the British Monarchy inclines more to Absolute Monarchy, or to a Republic?”

47 “Of the Independence of Parliament”, Works, Vol. 3, p. 120Google Scholar.

48 Ibid., p. 121.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid., pp. 121–22.

51 “Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth”, Works, Vol. 3, p. 480Google Scholar. Hume was careful to preface this admittedly utopian essay with several remarks intended to underline his own affection for an established system which worked tolerably well.

52 The exception to this point was Hume's interest in “national character.” Although he suggested that certain common traits, such as similar manners and habits, could be discovered in a people who had been associated over a long period of time, this idea was not employed to prove any qualitative differences among peoples. Note also the statement in Human Understanding, sec. 8, pt. 1: “Would you know the sentiments, inclinations, and course of life of the Greeks and Romans? Study well the temper and actions of the French and English: You cannot be much mistaken in transferring to the former most of the observations which you have made with regard to the latter. Mankind are so much the same in all times and places, that history informs us of nothing new or strange in this particular.”

53 Allen, John W., A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, 2nd ed. (London, 1940), pp. 134ffGoogle Scholar; Morris, Christopher, Political Thought in England: Tyndale to Hooker (London, 1953), pp. 68–126Google Scholar; Wolin, Sheldon S., “Richard Hooker and English Conservatism”, Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 28–47 (March, 1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wormuth, Francis D., The Royal Prerogative, 1603–1649 (Ithaca, 1939), pp. 83 ff.Google Scholar

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.