Abstract
| Language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages | 26 - 49 |
| Number of pages | 24 |
| Journal | Theoria |
| Volume | 60 |
| Issue number | 134 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2013 |
Cite this
}
What determines the boundary of civil society? Hume, Smith and the justification of European exploitation of non-Europeans. / Khalil, Elias Lafi.
In: Theoria, Vol. 60, No. 134, 2013, p. 26 - 49.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - What determines the boundary of civil society? Hume, Smith and the justification of European exploitation of non-Europeans
AU - Khalil, Elias Lafi
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - Civil society consists of members obligated to respect each other s rights and, hence, trade with each other as equals. What determines the boundary, rather than the nature, of civil society? For Adam Smith, the boundary consists of humanity itself because it is determined by identification: humans identify with other humans because of common humanness. While Smith s theory can explain the emotions associated with justice (jubilance) and injustice (resentment), it provides a mushy ground for the boundary question: Why not extend the common identity to nonhuman animals? Or why not restrict the boundary to one s own dialect, ethnicity or race? For David Hume, the boundary need not consist of humanity itself because it is determined by self-interest: a European need not respect the property of outsiders such as Native Americans, if the European benefits more by exploiting them than including them in the European society. While Hume s theory can provide a solid ground for the boundary question, it cannot explain the emotions associated with justice. This paper suggests a framework that combines the strengths, and avoids the shortcomings, of Smith s and Hume s theories.
AB - Civil society consists of members obligated to respect each other s rights and, hence, trade with each other as equals. What determines the boundary, rather than the nature, of civil society? For Adam Smith, the boundary consists of humanity itself because it is determined by identification: humans identify with other humans because of common humanness. While Smith s theory can explain the emotions associated with justice (jubilance) and injustice (resentment), it provides a mushy ground for the boundary question: Why not extend the common identity to nonhuman animals? Or why not restrict the boundary to one s own dialect, ethnicity or race? For David Hume, the boundary need not consist of humanity itself because it is determined by self-interest: a European need not respect the property of outsiders such as Native Americans, if the European benefits more by exploiting them than including them in the European society. While Hume s theory can provide a solid ground for the boundary question, it cannot explain the emotions associated with justice. This paper suggests a framework that combines the strengths, and avoids the shortcomings, of Smith s and Hume s theories.
U2 - 10.3167/th.2013.6013402
DO - 10.3167/th.2013.6013402
M3 - Article
VL - 60
SP - 26
EP - 49
JO - Theoria
T2 - Theoria
JF - Theoria
SN - 0040-5817
IS - 134
ER -