Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1-2006

Comments

Copyright © 2006 Journal of the History of Philosophy, Inc. This article first appeared in Journal of the History of Philosophy 44.1 (2006), 47-63. Reprinted with permission by The Johns Hopkins University Press.

DOI: 10.1353/hph.2006.0004

http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hph.2006.0004

Abstract

Adam Smith criticizes David Hume's account of the origin of and continuing adherence to the rule of law for being not sufficiently Humean. Hume explained that adherence to the rule of law originated in the self-interest to restrain self-interest. According to Smith, Hume does not pay enough attention to the passions of resentment and admiration, which have their source in the imagination. Smith offers a more naturalistic and evolutionary account of the psychological preconditions of the establishment and morality of justice than Hume had. Smith severs the intimate connection that Hobbes and Hume made between justice and property.

1

Share

COinS
 

The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author.