Hume

Hume begins section 1 with a reiteration to what we read earlier in class. He says that ethics must apply to the sentiments and not to reason alone. However, he also says that reason can guide us and inform us regarding the facts a situation, and that these should be considered when making moral choices. It is not enough simply to say that because a certain is perceived as odious to you it is viceful (or vice versa regarding virtue), this opinion must be informed by expirience. What I found interesting is that in one sentence he says, "It is probable..that this final sentence depends on some internal sense or feeling, hich nature has made universal in the whole species" (75). This speaks to the distinction we made earlier in class over a Hume conception of "objective" versus a Greek or traditional view of "objective", the former relating to universality and the latter refering to some "out there" principle which can be discovered outside of us as opposed to observed within human nature.
The overriding theme for the rest of the reading is the idea of utility. Utility, for Hume, both helps define our idea of things like justice as well as sets the context for such a term to be meaningful. For Hume their is no overriding principle which guides ethical action in all situations, but rather morality depends largely on social circumstance. He gives the example of a shipwreck victim procurring as much goods as he can for survival at the expense of other victims. This would not be unethical for Hume since justice depends on at least the ability of social sustainability. He talks of how in a society free of want justice loses its meaning but in a society in which the basic needs for all absent justice loses its utility and must be disregarded.
At first I read this conception justice in a positive light. I think it would healthy policy (both in foreign and domestic policy) to assure that basic needs for all people are met- if not to be morally good than to at least ensure that justice, which surely serves people, functions in a healthy way. However, he says that as the relationship of the state enters into the question of morality it is sometimes necessary to suspend the rule of law when justice is no longer a utility to the public. He writes, "Men are necessarilly born in a famil-society, at least; and are trained up by their parents to some ruleofconduct and behavior. But this mustbeadmitted, tha, ifsuchastateofmutual war andviolence was ever real,thesuspension ofalllaws andjustice, from their absolute inutility, is a necessary and infallibalble consequence." The first thing I thought of when I read this was the USPATRIOT act. I had never thought about it but if justice is seen strictly in view of how beneficial it is to society does that mean that there are times when it can be suspended? Shouldn't it be argued that justice is always beneficial to society, even in times of total war, and has intrinsic value, or at least there would never be a situation in which the suspension of justice was more beneficial than its upkeep?