Essay on Hume Vs. Social Contract Theory

779 Words Nov 20th, 2015 4 Pages
Hume Versus Social Contract Theory Hume states that “some other foundation of government” than the consent of the governed “must also be admitted.” In this essay, I will first outline Hume’s arguments against the social contract theory, then I will evaluate it by stating the reasons why people agree with Hume, and finally how I still believe Hume’s argument is not persuasive. The social contract theory states that the legitimacy of the government depends on our consent (Friend, 2015). Hume argues that we, as individuals, didn’t choose where we are born. Therefore, it’s unreasonable to think that one gives tacit consent to the government just because they were born there (Hume 23). Also, Hume says that peasants don’t have the capability to emigrate even if they wanted to because they don’t know the foreign languages and social norms of the other country or they just don’t have the money to leave (Hume 24). Therefore, consent from the individual to the government cannot be implied from them for not leaving the country because they do not have the resources to leave. However, I disagree with Hume’s arguments because I believe that no matter where you were born or you move to, it is still reasonable to think that individuals are tacitly consenting to the authority of the government in the country you are in through following the laws of the country.
Many people agree with Hume based on these two points because it brings up an interesting topic on whether the individual is…

Related Documents