흄(David Hume)의 社會契約論 批判에 관한 하나의 批判的 檢討

Abstract

本 論文은 흄이 社會契約論의 傳統에 가한 批判的 論議를 그의 人間本性 槪念과의 관련속에서 批判的으로 檢討하는메 目的을 두고 있다. 흄에 의하면 觀察과 經驗에 근거한 人間本性에 관한 理論이 곧 科學的 理論이자 모든 學問의 基礎가 된다고 한다. 社會契約論에 관한 論議에 있어서도 人間本性과의 연계는 필연적인 것으로, 本 論文에세는 흄의 社會契約論에 관한 批判的 論議는 과연 그의 人間本性論으로부터 일관성있게 展開된 것이며 그 속에서 흄은 社曾契約論을 批判하는데 成功하였는 가를 고찰하고 있다. 흄에 의하면, 人間本性상 財貨에 대한 道德的 感覺을 결여하고 있는 人間은 이의 補完을 위해 正義라는 人爲的 德을 만들게 되었다고 한다. 그리고 이를 위해 사람들은 貫行이라 불리우는 普通的인 道德的 感覺에 의해 社會를 形成한다. 그러나 社會를 形成한 以後에도 人間사이의 正義에 대한 위반이 빈번히 일어나자 다시 正義를 遵守토록 하기위한 강경책으로서 政府를 필요로 하게된다. 그렇지만 흄은 政府는 社會만큼 필연적인 것은 아닌 것으로 실제로 政府란 힘과 强制에 의해 세워진 歷史的 産物이라 주장하고 있다. 이와 같은 政府에 대한 政治論 義務의 根據는 단지 그 政府가 正義를 遵守하고 있는 지의 與否 다시 말해 각자의 財産을 保護해줄 수 있는 가에 달려있다. 政治的 正當性 역시 政府가 正羨의 遵守라는 기능만을 제대로 한다면 아무리 힘과 강제에 의해 세워진 政府라도 획득할 수 있다고 한다. 本 論文은 흄의 社會契約論 批判은 그의 人間本性論으로부터 일관성있게 提示된 것이라 할 수 있으나 當時 社會契約論의 틀에서 완전히 벗어나 이를 論破하고 있지 못하고 있음을 規明하고 있다. 흄의 政治社會의 道德的 基盤에 관한 설명은 社會契約論者의 그것과 본질적으로 별 差異가 없는 것으로 흄의 社會契約論 批判의 獨創性은 政府의 歷史的 起源, 政治的 義務와 政治的 正當性의 根據에 관한 설명에서 찾아질 수 있다. 흄의 社會契約論에 관한 批判的 論議는 완전히 成功을 이룬 것은 아니다. 그러나 社會契約論의 傳統에 있어 體系的인 첫 批判者로서의 흄의 貢獻은 認定되어야 하며 이를 통해 20세기 現代 社會契約論을 批判的으로 理解하는 데에 그 意義가 있다.;The aim of this study is to examine critically Hume's critique of the traditional idea of 'social contract' with special reference to his concept of human nature. According to Hume, the theory of human nature which is based upon observations and experiences is scientific and the only solid foundation for all the sciences, natural and moral. So the theory of 'social contract' must be examined on the basis of the theory of human nature, rather than on the basis of some ficticious hypothesis. This thesis seeks to analyze whether Hume's critique of 'the social contract' has been uniformly developed from his concept of human nature and whether Hume has succeeded in his critique of 'the social contract'. Hume's theory of human nature can be summarized as follows; (1) All the perceptions of the human mind resolve themselves into two distinct kinds, which are called impressions and ideas. Those perceptions which enter the human mind with most force and violence are named impressions; ideas are the faint images of impressions in thinking and reasoning. Now that ideas are derived from impressions, the foundation of human mind is the sensations which are called impressions. (2) Knowledge is the product of repeated experiences through naturally given sensations. (3) Human actions and judgements are determined by human passions. Passions are secondary, or reflective impressions proceeded from some of original impressions, either immediately or by the interposition of ideas. The source of passions is pleasures and pains, which arise originally in the soul. Pleasures and pains are the motive of human action. Actions have a constant union with motives. Therefore, the moral judgement of human actions is related to the existence of pleasures and pains. (4) It is through sympathy, which is an essential element of human nature, that moral distinction can be derived from a moral sense. But the human being by nature lacks a moral sense with regard to possessions. According to Hume, the human being has contrived an artificial virture called justice to compensate for this lack. For this human beings form a society by convention, that is, a moral sense of common interest. But even after the formation of a society, as violations against justice continue human beings try to form a government to enforce justice. Hume asserts, however, that in fact a government is a historical product of force and usurpation. The political obligation is based on whether a government is able to enforce justice, ultimately to protect individual's property. Political legitimacy, therefore, can be obtained when the government is able to retain justice. In conclusion, Hume's critique of 'the social contract' has been uniformly developed from his concept of human nature. But Hume appears to have failed in arguing against the limits and self-contradictions of 'the social contract'. Namely, Hume has not been able to overcome the framework of 'the social contract.' An explanation of the moral basis of Hume's political society has no major difference from those of 'the social contract'. The originality of Hume's critique of 'the social contract' must be found in his assertions concerning the historical origin of government and the basis of political obligation and political legitimacy. Hume's critique of 'the social contract' cannot be termed a complete success, but Hume is recognized as the first critic who had tried to refute 'the social contract' systematically. Through this the 20th century social contract theory can be critically understood.