This is because we are able to create property rights by with one Of the two present, whereas Hummed argues that both, the selfishness of man and the scarce resources that we eave present in the world are essential in order for justice and property rights to be derived. This is a relevant topic because it describes how our current society has been brought about and how we have developed markets and institutions within society . I will firstly define what Hummed means by selfishness, confined generosity, scanty provisions and justice, and from this I will identify Hum’s viewpoint regarding the derivation of justice.
It is from this establishment of Hum’s derivation, I am able to provide examples where only one of the two conditions is required to fulfill the institution of justice. I will do this by providing an example of where there is unlimited benevolence but limited external goods and where there is limited benevolence and unlimited external goods. I will look at both Hum’s viewpoint on the derivation of justice and mine from the notion of game theory-?to see where payoff would be greater and hence why we see the development of justice.
This is an excellent introduction with all the three key elements: a) motivation of the essay prompt, b) clear claim, and c) structure of your paper. Well done! Hummed describes humans as being self-interested creatures. It is through this idea that Hummed defines our limited benevolence and the ‘self-love’: one will love one-self the most and from here the love for another being diminishes (or decreases) as we go further in relation to that person.
For example, love myself more than love my mother, but I love my mother more than love my colleague and lastly love my colleague more than love a stranger on the street. The marginal unit of generosity decreases the further in relation a person is to a certain individual and it is this that Hummed refers to as ‘selfishness and confined generosity of men’. Very good! Though humans may not possess as much concern for every single other individual, it is not to say that human-beings do not possess benevolence (be it limited).
But it is through this conception of benevolence support for friends and order can be brought about in society. ‘Scanty provision’ combined with the notion of limited benevolence (or selfishness, shall use these interchangeably) justice can be derived. Hummed refers to the most basic economic problem of men having unlimited wants and needs but living in a world where there are many scarce resources resent as ‘scanty provision’.
Good The fact there exists limited external goods in combination with our selfish behavior of indicating that one’s property is what is lawful for him alone to use had led to the creation of property rights and the rule of law-?the derivation of justice. It is not solely for this purpose of defining property rights that justice has been derived but from the perspective of game theory, humans are able to reach a stable equilibrium with a higher pay off than what can be achieved by solely producing and consuming individually.
Thus the social order of society is rated as well as markets for trade and consumption. It can be seen that ‘justice’ is derived, in Hum’s opinion, from the need to establish property rights especially in the face of limited external goods. From this need of establishing property rights, artificial virtue on which society is founded is created because based on conventions of trust and mutual agreements maximize of public utility (linking back to the idea of game theory and pay offs). Hummed relates justice to public utility when an action fits human sentiment.
For example, if both Adam and Eve respect each other’s property sights (respect being a virtue, a human sentiment) then both are able to maximize public utility therefore making this action by both of them just. Whereas if they both do not respect each other’s property right then their selfishness and disregard to one-another is seen as being non-public utility maximizing therefore unjust. According to Hummed, limited benevolence and limited external goods are the two conditions necessary for the derivation of justice. Very good!
Since if ‘scanty provision’ did not exist then there would be plenty between the human race to satisfy the wants and needs of all and rule of law would cease o exist. On the other-hand, if humanity possessed unlimited benevolence, an individual would care about the other person as much as themselves and therefore would have no problem in sharing thus creating another situation where rule of law would cease to exist. Though the above two scenarios seem to justify how both conditions are required, they disregard how the notion of justice is crucially established on public utility.
There exist examples where rule of law is in fact required for public utility otherwise anarchy occurs. If Hummed believes that justice is a way f providing public utility through using the establishment of laws then it can be seen that both are not required to achieve this but rather one condition is enough to bring about the convention of justice. In order to depict this, consider a society where everyone is unlimitedly benevolent but there are limited external goods.
This society is constructed of 6 kidney patients but only 4 kidneys (the limited external good). The goods are clearly not divisible however in this society every kidney patient IS extremely benevolent and would rather let another person have the kidney. This leads to a circular argument where every individual who is offered a kidney transplant would rather let someone else have the kidney or rather since this ‘good’ cannot be shared the 6 kidney patients would prefer that they not have the good.
Thus leading to either an unstable outcome-?where individuals keep offering the kidney to the next person or a stable but a low payoff outcome where no-one consumes the good meaning O out of the 6 individuals survive which does not maximize public utility. However by introducing a rule of law which dictates the person most in need of a kidney, wrought means testing, will receive a kidney first allows this society to achieve a stable equilibrium with a higher payoff where 4 out of the 6 individuals survive, even the truly benevolent individuals of this society are able to recognize who is truly in need of a kidney.
In this way, it is not self interest that dictates who has the right to a good but more so the notion of who is more in need of the good from which justice is derived from. Therefore public utility as a result is maximized and a higher payoff can be achieved. This is an excellent example and very nicely worked out! Keep this level of detail in mind when you think about your assumptive coursework and your exam paper! On the other-hand, consider a society where everyone is limitedly benevolent however there are unlimited external goods.
Within this society of 1 00 people, the unlimited good, clean water, is available from one sole well. Due to everyone’s selfishness, there is chaos around the well, where each person has rushed to try and gather clean water. This chaos around the well leads to a low payoff thus resulting in public utility not being maximized since this congregation around the well has meant there is no system in place where an individual respects the other’s turn to draw water from the well.
Thus leading to inefficiency and perhaps further leading to only 92 of the 100 people in the society being able to successfully draw water from the well-?an unlimited resource. In this example, rule of law needs to established so the individual is able to artificially create respect for everyone’s need for clean water-?this may take the form Of learning how to or creating a drainage system which allows clean water to reach everyone’s home. Both solutions require an establishment of consensus between the 1 00 individuals of the society thus reading justice and leading to a higher payoff.
It is through this notion of public utility I can state that in a society full of selfish individuals and bountiful goods, rule of law will still be erected because ‘skilful politicians’ will always realize that public utility by one’s own production and consumption does not maximize pay off, rather by constructing employees and employers in a society where there are unlimited goods you are able to efficiently create better goods to satiate the ever growing needs and wants of men.
In the world of opposite, where everyone is nonviolent but there is scarcity, rule of law will once again need to be established due to the soft-hearted nature of individuals and the lack of action being willing to be taken. From the two examples of having limited benevolence but unlimited external goods, and unlimited benevolence but limited external goods, it can be seen that justice does not necessitate the two conditions. One will suffice in order to establish the rule of law.
This is because Hum’s derivation of justice is underpinned on the idea of public utility. Very good summary Of your paper. General comments This is a well-written paper which exhibits a great meta-structure and shows considerable independence of thought by carefully working out two counter- examples to Hum’s claim. Well done Tanked! The introduction contains a clear claim and a very good outline of your paper. The structure of the paper is very good: you begin by carefully introducing the key terms and you then focus on two crystal clear counter-examples.
The reader guidance is clear because you always State what you are doing next. I think you can improve this paper even more by paying attention to the following two areas: 1) In the iris part of the paper, make sure that you explain Hum’s conception of an artificial virtue carefully enough (see my comments above) 2) One way to deepen and strengthen your arguments would be to incorporate potential replies to your objections to Hummed.