Hume argues that reason alone can never motivate actions or oppose passions.

Because moral

distinction is able to motivate actions, reason cannot be the source of moral distinction. The

relationship between objects, which reason can detect, also cannot be the source of moral distinction

because we judge same relationships between objects differently according to morality. Moral

distinction cannot lie in matters of fact, because we cannot make value judgement on facts. For

Hume, moral distinction arises from sentiment. An act that gives us a sentiment of praise, is virtuous

and and an act that gives us a sentiment of blame is vicious. In this essay, I will support Hume’s

argument that justice is an artificial virtue, but we treat justice as a natural virtue. I will apply his

view of justice to analyze two cases. To do this, I will first present why justice is an artificial virtue

by showing its origin. Then, I will explain how we treat justice as a natural virtue, although is not a

natural virtue. To fully illustrate Hume’s opinion on justice, in the first case of not paying back debts,

I will show that a single act that is beneficial to all parties involved is unjust if it fails to follow the

convention of justice. In the second case of freeing a slave, I will explain that according to Hume, a

convention that fails to promote the interest of humans can not be a convention of justice.

Hume argues that justice is an artificial virtue by showing the origin of justice. He first examines

two facts about humans and nature. First, human desire is large. Second, with our limited power,

nature offers us limited resources. Our cleverness allows us to cooperate and create a society. This

promotes the division of labor and increases our power to fulfill our desires. However, because of

selfishness and limited generosity of humans and limited resources offered by nature, cooperation in

a large society is very unstable. Selfish humans are motivated by self-interest to possess these limited

resources as much as they can and are poor cooperators with strangers. To maintain cooperation,

reason helps us to invent an artificial convention that requires mutual consent to respect each other’s

property, right, keep promises and pay back debts. Justice arises from this convention. For example, I

may cooperate with my roommate, Angela. I will bake bread if she buys milk for both of us. My self-
interest motivates me to not bake bread and just enjoy the milk. However, I know that if I do not

bake bread, I will not have milk, which is not beneficial for my interest. It is the same for Angela.

She does not want to buy milk for me. However, she knows that if she does not buy milk, she will

have no bread, which is not beneficial for her interest. Therefore, we form a convention that I bake

bread and Angela buys milk. Although my self-interest motivates me to act against the convention,

given that Angela will imitate my action, reason tells me that acting in accordance with the

convention promotes both my interest and hers. In this way, we form a stable cooperation.

Selfishness and limited generosity of humans and nature which offers limited resources for our

desires create a problem of maintaining cooperation in a large society. This problem remedied by the

convention. Justice only arises from this convention. If humans show extensive generosity or if

nature offers unlimited resources, the convention will not be established and justice will not arise.

Therefore, because justice arises from the convention which is artificial, it cannot be a natural virtue.

Although justice is not a natural virtue, it is treated as a natural virtue for two reasons. First, we

make moral distinctions between just and unjust acts through sympathy with public interest. Living

in a large society where cooperation is protected by the convention of justice, we are able to notice

the advantages of the convention for everyone in society and establish sympathy with public interest.

A unjust act displeases us because we think that the act harms our society, and the person who

commits the act is harmful to everyone surrounding him. As members of society, we consider

ourselves as potential victims of this act and are outraged by it. For example, I may observe that a

thief is stealing from a store. Although I am not the owner of the store and his act does not violate my

property or self-interest directly, I will still feel uneasiness and a sentiment of blame when the

convention of property is violated by the thief for two reasons. First, I recognize that the convention

of property benefits both me and everyone else in society. I consider the thief’s act, which violates

this convention of property, as a harm on the interest of each individual, including myself. Second, I
have sympathy with public interest. In this case, because the store owner is a part of society, I

sympathize with her loss of property and feel uneasiness and a sentiment to blame the thief. Because

an act which makes us feel uneasiness is considered vicious. From this sympathy with public

interest, seeing an act of justice triggers moral sentiments and justice becomes a virtue. Because

seeing an act of a nature virtue triggers moral sentiments similarly, we consider justice as a nature

virtue.

Social reinforcement and private education also helps in making people consider justice as a

natural virtue. Justice arises from the convention that we all agree to follow, and is not originally in

our nature. However, believing that justice is a part of human nature gives us a stronger impulse to

obey the convention than considering the convention as an agreement between humans. Therefore, to

promote us to act justly, politicians and parents present justice as a natural virtue through social

reinforcement and private education. First, in order to govern their citizens more easily, politicians

help their citizens to act justly by presenting justice as a natural virtue. They produce an esteem for

justice in society. In this way, our moral sentiment for justice becomes stronger. Ultimately, we

consider justice as a natural virtue of humans and obey the convention of justice spontaneously.

Private education also helps in making people consider justice as a natural virtue. Parents may

recognize that obeying the convention of justice is more beneficial for both the person himself and

his society. To educate their children better, parents teach them about justice and relates it with honor

from their infancy. In this way, although justice is not originally in children’s minds, it becomes an

essential part of them. Therefore, although justice is artificial, we treat it as a natural virtue.

Hume’s view of justice can be further illustrated and supported in the following two cases. In the

first case, George borrowed $1,000 from Alice. Although promising to pay it back in a month,

George lend the money to John, who he thought to need the money more. George may believes that

the single act of returning the money to Alice is not the most beneficial use of the money. Because
justice should promote the interest of each individual, this action of returning money should not be

called just. So, his act of lending the money to John, which presents a better use of the money, is just.

However, Hume argues that George’s act of not paying back debts is unjust, because it violate the

convention of justice, which is beneficial for interest of each individual. Although a single just act

may not be pleasing, the convention which justice arises from is pleasing. In this case, the

convention is paying one’s debt as promised. Our nature of selfishness and limited generosity makes

us bad cooperators under the nature where resources are limited. We are reluctant to pay debts back

for our self-interest and lending money is risky for lenders. The convention that we all need to pay

debts back as promised remedies the problem and helps us establish a better society, where lending

money is safer and borrowing money is easier. Although our self-interest is restrained by following

the convention of paying back debts, the convention helps us establish a better society and is more

beneficial for everyone in society. In this way, the convention of paying debts ultimately promotes

our self-interest and justice arises from this convention. Although it is not the most beneficial use of

the money for George and John to pay back the debt to Alice, the convention of paying debts back

promotes the interest of everyone in society, including Alice, John and George. The benefit that the

convention offers will ultimately compensate and exceed the benefit of lending the money to John.

So, the convention of paying back debts is originally motivated by self-interest of each individual. As

a result, George’s act of not paying back debts to Alice is unjust, because it violates the convention of

paying back debts, which promotes the interest of each individual.

Some people may argues that if Alice is a billionaire who would never care about the money and

John is a unemployed and injured worker who needs the money to do a surgery, George’s act should

not be unjust. His act does no harm to John, George and Alice. Moreover, an act that helps John

triggers George’s sympathy for John and makes us feel a sentiment of praise. Therefore, this act

should be virtuous. However, this special case makes no difference from Hume’s view of justice.
Even if Alice does not care about the money and George’s act of not paying back debt does not harm

Alice’s interest, the convention of paying back debt is violated by the act. Because the convention of

paying back debt is beneficial for each individual, an act that goes against it hurts the interest of each

individual, including Alice, George and John. For example, if there is no convention of paying back

debts, lending and borrowing will not exist. So, George will not be able to get the money from Alice

or lend it to John. The interest of each individual is harmed if the convention of paying back debt

fails to exist. Therefore, not paying back debts violates the convention and hurts the interest of each

individual. Under this special case, George’s act of lending money to John can promote John’s

interest temporarily without violating Alice’s interest. However, because this act violates the

convention of justice, it hurts the interest of each individual and cannot be just.

In the second case of Delta, Alfred, who is a citizen of Delta, wishes to free a slave called Fred.

Fred works with Alfred and is owned by another citizen, Bob. Alfred’s action of freeing Fred is not

unjust according to Hume. Some may consider Alfred’s act of freeing Fred as a violation of Bob’s

property and believe that his action is unjust and morally wrong. They argue that self-interest

motivates us to possess as much as we can. Society, which is beneficial to human wellbeing can only

operate when possession of property is stable. Therefore, to form a stable society, we are motivated

ultimately by self-interest to follow the convention that we do not violate others’ property when

others do the same. From this convention, justice derives its origin and violation of the convention is

unjust. In this case, by freeing the slave, Fred, Alfred violated Bob’s property and acts against

convention. Therefore, his action is unjust. Because obeying the convention follows our self-interest,

we recognize the advantage of this convention and feel a sympathy for public interest. Though this

sympathy, we feel uneasiness when seeing the convention been violated and considered it as morally

wrong. When seeing Bob’s property been violated by Alfred, we sympathize with Bob and have a

sentiment to blame Alfred. Therefore, Alfred’s act is unjust and vicious.

 Hume may disagree with this argument by claiming that the convention of owning slaves is not a

convention of justice. Objector of Alfred’s act argues that by freeing Fred, Alfred violates the

convention of property, therefore, acts unjustly. However, reason allows us to make distinction and

realize that humans are different from objects like chairs and cannot be owned as properties justly. A

freed chair can do nothing more for Delta comparing to an owned chair. On the other hand, a freed

slave can contribute more to Delta than an owned slave. Slaves can not get education or choose their

jobs according to their preference and ability, but fulfill the work which their owners assign. In this

way, slaves fail to realize their full potentials and contribute to Delta as much as they could. Because

society cannot realize the full potentials of slaves and the wellbeing of society is not maximized,

every citizen in society fails to enjoy the advantage of society as much as he/she could. Therefore,

although the single act of owning slave may be beneficial to its owner for that he can enjoy more

without paying more, the convention of owning slaves fails to promote the interest of each citizens in

Delta, including Fred, Alfred and even Bob. For Bob, the freeing of slaves makes him loss a free

labor, Fred. However, living in a society, where slaves are able to contribute more for each citizen to

enjoy, can ultimately yield enough benefit to compensate his loss. So, in the long run, Bob’s interest

is promoted by the freeing of slaves. The convention of justice is invented only when obeying

convention promotes an individual’s self-interest under the assumption that others will do the same.

In this way, the convention of justice promotes the interest of each citizen. Because under the

convention of owning slaves, every citizen in Delta fails to enjoy the advantage of society as much as

he/she could, this convention of owning slaves fails to promote the interest of each citizen.

Therefore, it is not a convention of justice and violating the convention of owning slaves as

properties is not violating a convention of justice. So, Alfred’s act of freeing Fred is not unjust.