David Hume: Conservative or Anti-Conservative

Keen to increase the intellectual ballast for their political outlook, some conservatives have sought to identify more major thinkers as their champions.  One thinker who was thus enlisted is the eighteenth-century philosopher and historian, David Hume.

The main reason why the conservative-minded think Hume is on their side is the thorough scepticism he directed at radical/revolutionary ideas.  Hume stressed the reliability of any given claim can only be derived from experience.  Over time, if people have come to find that certain claims – be they about the recurrence of some natural phenomenon, or the efficacy of a social arrangement – are backed by their shared experience, then that is a sound basis for accepting them.  By contrast, if someone tries to argue against such claims without any tangible evidence, then our starting point has to be one of doubt regarding such an argument.  Indeed, the more drastic a departure from what is backed by prevailing findings and observations, the less inclined we should be in allowing it to determine our thinking.

 

In his historical writings, Hume cited disapprovingly the ideas Cromwell and many parliamentarians invoked in getting rid of King Charles I in the English Civil War (1642-1651).  This has suggested to later conservatives that Hume would frown upon any proposal to change a long-established socio-political system, and he could therefore be embraced as a beacon of conservatism.

Alas, they are mistaken on two levels.  First of all, Hume was never dogmatically against change.  For him, the key was whether what was being put forward was some abstract claim not connected to any relevant experience, or it was a set of assertions that people could assess from their own observations.  After all, he judged it was correct that political rebels in England forced King James II off the throne in the ‘Glorious Revolution’ (1688).  For Hume, proposed changes for which there are sound empirical grounds for trying are worthy of experimental adoption; but complete transformation which has no evidence to suggest may have beneficial effects should be resisted, especially if it is intended as irreversible.  

Secondly, given Hume’s opposition to sweeping claims that defy empirical validation, he would most likely be a staunch critic of quite a few of the core elements of contemporary conservative politics. Take the following:

·      Religious fundamentalism

Hume would wholeheartedly reject any political idea that seeks to use some contested text in one particular religious tradition to justify an edict on everyone to comply with a command that strikes many as dubious and harmful in its effects.

·      Market ideology

Hume would expose as groundless any attempt to declare one single approach to structure the economy as sacrosanct.  He would point to the diversity of economic systems, the different pros and cons, and warn against accepting ‘free market’ as unquestionably the best model despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

 

·      Xenophobic jingoism

Hume would challenge any claim that one race or one nation is inherently superior to all others as disconnected from any empirical fact. He would reject as delusional any suggestion that we should seek to dominate others on the absurd basis of our ‘greatness’.

Hume’s philosophy is consistently cautious – about what we are warranted in believing.  That extends to beliefs which supposedly reflect long established traditions that should be preserved, when in fact they are groundless claims that ought to be cast aside.