Civil society consists of members obligated to respect each other's rights and, hence, trade with each other as equals. What determines the boundary, rather than the nature, of civil society? For Adam Smith, the boundary consists of humanity itself because it is determined by identification: humans identify with other humans because of common humanness. While Smith's theory can explain the emotions associated with justice (jubilance) and injustice (resentment), it provides a mushy ground for the boundary question: Why not extend the common identity to nonhuman animals? Or why not restrict the boundary to one's own dialect, ethnicity or race? For David Hume, the boundary need not consist of humanity itself because it is determined by self-interest: a European need not respect the property of outsiders such as Native Americans, if the European benefits more by exploiting them than including them in the European society. While Hume's theory can provide a solid ground for the boundary question, it cannot explain the emotions associated with justice. This paper suggests a framework that combines the strengths, and avoids the shortcomings, of Smith's and Hume's theories.
Search Results
What Determines the Boundary of Civil Society?
Hume, Smith and the Justification of European Exploitation of Non-Europeans
Elias L. Khalil
Responses to Matthew Eshleman and Adrian van den Hoven
Sarah Richmond
? (Today, of course, the adjective is mildly offensive, but we are engaging with the language of 1943. Note that Thomson invented her ‘fat man’ variant of the trolley problem as recently as 1985!) The synonyms offered in a French thesaurus seemed to take me
In Sartre Studies International
- Published (Print):
- 01 Jun 2020
- Article Type:
- Reply
- Pages:
- 29–37 (9 total)