Liberty and Necessity

Matt Klee

Professor Syzmkowiak

Philosophy 200

4/28/16

Liberty and Necessity

In beginning his argument on the doctrines of liberty and necessity in his work An Enguiry concerning Human Understanding, David Hume first points out that men, both learned and ignorant, had not yet reached a uniform conclusion concerning the question on whether the two are compatible. However, he contends that this is simply due to the fact that the disputants who have involved themselves with this question, had affixed different ideas, meanings, and definitions to the terms employed in this argument. Hume claims that by inducing a few intelligible definitions, neither outlandish nor obscure, will make it abundantly clear that all men have in fact always been in agreement over this controversy. In doing so he is also able to demonstrate that the idea of human nature is in accordance with the one’s right to speak of liberty. He sets out to accomplish this by first defining necessity, followed by liberty, in a clear and concise manner. Subsequently he is able to show them to be compatible as well as an integral part of human nature.

        A most central and intrinsic aspect to Hume’s definition of necessity is the idea that throughout all of time, there has always been conjunction between like objects and events. We can only know that one event follows another, not that one was produced by another. Hume believes that necessity is the constant conjunction of similar objects together with an inference of the mind from one object to another. The mind is able to make these inferences due to past experiences and customs and that beyond this, we have no notion of any connection or relation of cause and effect.

This conjunction is observable in the operations of nature, as well as in the actions of man. In regards to the latter, Hume observes that in all nations and ages the same motives have always produced the same actions. Ambition, avarice, love, hate, jealousy and so on mixed in varying degrees and distributed throughout society have been, and will continue to be the cause of all actions and events. He argues that history is proof of this because it fails to point out anything new or strange with mankind. Its chief use is to discover the constant and universal principles of human nature He believes that if you are seeking to understand the temperaments behind the actions of the ancient Greeks and Romans, you will not fail in doing so by studying the same of the present day French. Additionally, Hume comes up with a theoretical situation to push his theory further. He claims that if a traveler returning from some foreign country claimed that the people in that country were totally without avarice, ambition, revenge etc., and only lived with friendship and generosity, the traveler would be considered a liar. Hume declares that this traveler’s claim would be put on a level of falsehood with the likes of stories concerning dragons, centaurs and miracles. As Hume puts it, this recognizable uniformity in human actions is a source from which we draw inferences from, a perfect example of how we look to the past in order to draw all inferences concerning the future. Again, this constant union of the mind is the same as and can be found in all other natural operations. It allows us to infer, from the existence of one thing, the existence of another.

        Although Hume believes that human emotions and actions have a causal relationship, he recognizes the fact that there is still a great deal of variety in human action despite this. Hume acknowledges that men will not always act precisely the same under the same circumstances and even argues that such uniformity is not found in any part of nature. He highlights the fact that an allowance must be made for the diversity of characters, prejudices, and opinions as well as the fact that the human body and mind are hopelessly complicated things which we can never hope to comprehend and understand in their entirety. It can be said then that just because irregular events and actions sometimes happen without a discernible cause or motive, does not prove or show that the laws of nature and actions of man are incorrectly observed with greatest uniformity and regularity. Occasionally, those who know of someone’s character and circumstances best can account for even the most irregular actions of that person. For example, Hume proposes that a person of a genial disposition may react with hostility because he has a toothache or is starving. Hume states that these instances have allowed philosophers to form a maxim, which argues that although the connection between all causes and effects is necessary, it’s seeming uncertainty proceeds from the secret or unknown opposition of contrary causes. One cannot define cause without a notion of necessity. For Hume chance does not exist. One cannot only pretend that some causes are necessary while others are not. This is an important aspect to keep in mind in defining liberty.