Justice In David Hume's Definition Of Justice

In David Hume’s book, Moral Philosophy, he describes his definition of what justice is in the section “Of justice”. Hume’s view of the definition of justice is that it is the rules of property. The rules of property can be compared to the rules of baseball. These rules are circumstantial, are able to changed, and are useful. This is contrary to John Locke who believes that the definition of justice is equivalent to the laws of physics. The laws of physics can be defined as eternal, unable to be changed, and always applicable. Hume believes that if justice were purely a rational law of nature that it would apply to all cases. According to Hume, because justice does not apply to all cases, it cannot be a purely rational law of nature. In order for justice to be a purely rational law of nature, it needs to apply to all cases and situations. Hume’s has seven arguments for why he believes justice does not apply to all cases. Hume’s provides seven arguments that testify how and why justice cannot

The cases that Hume presents are not reliable support for his argument. For example, it is nearly impossible to have an infinite or extreme amount of abundance. These rare and unrealistic situations dramatically seek to prove his argument and lack any actuality or practicality. If Hume’s purpose is to tell his readers about how justice works in the real world he needs to provide realistic examples that can be applicable to real world situations. His argument is not illustrated realistically if he uses imaginary or erratic scenarios to get his point across. To make his argument stronger, Hume’s should have considered examples that can be applicable to real life situations. Using these dramatic cases like extreme abundance, altruism, or scarcity as an argument is not realistic and should not be used as his