MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077632000 · doi:10.1353/utq.0.0344

David Hume’s Political Theory: Law, Commerce, and the Constitution of Government (review)

2009· article· en· W2077632000 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Donald C. Ainslie

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHume's philosophy and hair distribution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical philosophyConstitutionPoliticsPossession (linguistics)Argument (complex analysis)Economic JusticeLawPhilosophyLaw and economicsSociologyPolitical scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: David Hume’s Political Theory: Law, Commerce, and the Constitution of Government Donald C. Ainslie (bio) Neil McArthur. David Hume’s Political Theory: Law, Commerce, and the Constitution of Government. University of Toronto Press. xii, 194. $45.00 Most philosophers limit their study of David Hume’s political philosophy to A Treatise of Human Nature and An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals. There, Hume focuses on the foundations of justice and accounts for them in terms of the mutual coordination of our self-interested behaviour. Action in accordance with these artifices counts as virtuous only because we have an emotional resonance with the public good, and literally feel how we are each better off when we all respect basic property rights and fulfill our promises. In these works, Hume shows little interest in whether one scheme of rights is better than another; indeed, he seems [End Page 250] to say that so long as promise-keeping and stability in possession is assured, any scheme is fine. McArthur’s book demonstrates that this blinkered view of Hume’s project misses as much as it gets right, for Hume supplements his account of the foundations of justice with a much more detailed political theory in his Essays: Moral, Political, and Literary and his six-volume History of England. As the title of one essay puts it, ‘politics may be reduced to a science,’ by an examination of the regularities at work in different societies. McArthur focuses on Hume’s argument that there are causal linkages between a society’s being ‘civilized’ (as opposed to ‘barbarous’), its legal system, its commercial system, and its accomplishments in the arts and sciences. Hume’s empiricism means that he makes these kinds of causal claims only by a detailed investigation and comparison of particular societies, especially England, but also France, and ancient Greece and Rome. One of McArthur’s great accomplishments is bringing these disparate texts together and thus illuminating Hume’s conception of political life. He shows that, for Hume, a society is civilized only to the extent that it has established the rule of law, where the ruler’s character is irrelevant to the functioning of the social order. And McArthur ably demonstrates that Hume means for this point to apply not only to the highest powers in society, but also to the lesser magistrates who implement the legislative order. With civilization, advances in commerce become possible, and with it the development of science and knowledge. Hume does not mean this to be a unidirectional process. Many accidents of history will accelerate or retard the mutual progress of civilization, commerce, and learning. But we can evaluate the success of different societies, depending on their place in this spectrum of development. McArthur thus concludes that the traditional description of Hume as a conservative is misplaced. He is certainly willing to judge societies in light of universal standards that he sees as being grounded in human nature. But Hume is also skeptical about our capacity to predict the consequences of reform, and thus he thinks that radical innovations are usually imprudent. To this extent, he is what McArthur calls a ‘precautionary conservative.’ McArthur’s insightful book is a pleasure to read, and a real addition to the history of political thought. It has one shortcoming: it underplays Hume’s interest in how religion can interfere with political life. The History repeatedly points to the conflicts between the sacred and secular realms, and how the irrationality of religious passions leads people to disregard their self-interest and thus also justice itself. As is the case with Hume’s political philosophy, philosophers have tended to restrict their discussions of Hume’s philosophy of religion to his more overtly philosophical works – the dismantling of the design argument for the existence of God in the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion and the attack on [End Page 251] miracles in the Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. Perhaps McArthur can be tempted into writing a sequel to his book by extending his argument to incorporate Hume’s neglected but fascinating account of religion’s role in political life? Donald C. Ainslie Donald C. Ainslie, Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto Copyright...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.008

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlySame topicHume's philosophy and hair distributionFrench-language works237,207