Hume's critique of the concept of natural rights. How far do you agree Essay

Hume's critique of the concept of natural rights. How far do you agree with this critique - Essay Example However much Hume is critical of Locke's notion of what is natural, there is much incorporated in the view that could essentially be described as Lockean. Finally, this analysis will close with an analysis of literature which is critical of Hume's critique. The question will be asked as to whether or not, Hume is not essentially setting up a straw man as he criticises Locke? Is Hume doing Locke justice will be a question examined in the closing of the analysis? Finally, this analysis will close by arguing that the radical scepticism of knowing, when implied to the self demonstrates to am impossible situation. Where Locke believed that the self was substance with attributes, Hume maintained because of his scepticism that it could not be known at all. That is the logical outcome of his logic, and the closing of this paper will examine why that it is so. Whether it is Hume discussing Locke, or just Locke discussing something like private property one has to understand what Locke argued to be a natural right. Moreover, to understand what Hume understood by natuin more detail, his particular views on private property when he criticized Locke on this and a number of different areas connected to the our relationship to to the external world. One of the interesting aspects of Locke’s view on private property. ... [Locke 21]. As we shall see for Hume, this is point of criticism which is often described in terms of the distinction between what 'ought' to be versus what is? The state of nature is in practise for Locke, unstable in its essence, and this follows from his claim that humans, unless coerced, often infringe on the natural rights of others. [Locke 10] It is soon apparent in the Second Treatise, that in order that humans or a community enjoy their natural rights, and for the sake of creating stability, they must join together and form a ‘social contract’. The function or the purpose of this contract, is to form a civil society in which humans will maintain their natural rights, within a government that has been established to enforce laws for the end of protecting those rights, and in turn, to adjudicate or legislate disputes. This law of nature gives humans their natural rights, and within this, we all have a right to life and a right to some liberty, as long, however as o ur actions do not infringe upon the natural rights of others: â€Å"the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions† [Locke 9]. Before the creation of civil society, or in the state of nature, ma has a right to amass or acquire private property only in so far he has a use for it. For example, a man has a right to as much food as his family might need, but he has no right to a surplus of food which might perhaps spoil. Thus, the way in which problems are resolved in a community of equals, is that a ruler serves the purpose or the function of providing the