休謨是契約論者嗎？對高提也的“David Hume Contractarian”之批判性反思

Abstract

晚近以來，越來越多的研究者主張休謨的正義理論立基於社會契約的概念上，這與休謨以批判社會契約論著稱的傳統形象相去甚遠。為評估此研究趨勢是否有助於釐清休謨的正義理論，本文聚焦於高提也的＂David Hume, Contractarian＂。該文的主要涵義為：第一，休謨的效益原則不同於效益主義所捍衛的公共福祉，反而與位居契約論核心的互惠更為相符。其次，高提也強調休謨思想的保守性，否定休謨具備分配正義的關懷。本文指出，休謨眼中的人性並非僅以追求自我之私利為滿足；相反地，人類與生俱來的親社會性在休謨的理論中發揮了關鍵的作用。其次，休謨並非僅關注財產制度之穩定性的資產階級代言人，在其經濟論文中，他表達了對社會不平等問題的重視，尤其是對奴隸制度的譴責。

There is a trend that forms lately in the study of David Hume`s political thought, namely an increasing number of scholars now regard Hume`s theory of justice as founded on the idea of social contract. This view deviates from Hume`s conventional image which proposed significant criticism of social contract theory. To evaluate this interpretive perspective, this article focuses on David Gauthier`s ＂David Hume, Contractarian＂. Gauthier`s essay has two implications. First, Gauthier argues that whereas Hume`s theory of justice is founded on a principle of utility, utility for Hume does not reveal the general welfare of society as what utilitarianism defends, but mutual advantage compatible with a contractarian account of morality. Second, Gauthier emphasizes the conservative tendency of Hume`s political thought, and he rejects that there is a concern for distributive justice in it. This article argues that, unlike Gauthier`s view, Hume thinks that human nature may not be reduced to the psychology of selfishness. On the contrary, men`s natural sociability and sympathy are crucial to Hume`s theory of justice. Moreover, if Gauthier took Hume`s economic essays more seriously, he would have found Hume`s criticism of slavery and oppressions. On that account, it seems not fair to depict Hume as a conservative indifferent to social inequality.