In Defense of Hume's "Natural Justice"

This post was actually going to be a comment. But it’s long enough, so I’m taking advantage of the system. So for anyone reading this post, I would urge you to read Mr. Cull’s before you read this one. And here we go:
I, of course, have some disagreements with Thomas' estimation (or should I say simplification) of Hume's argument. In response to the blatantly rhetorical question: "Who decides when a custom is institutionalized?" I must answer that, if natural justice arises out of an evolutionary process, no one decides it in the sense that they vote on it. The question sounds to me like someone asking, why do human hands have five fingers? No one specifically decided that fact. In our early days, we used our hands in such a way as to necessitate five fingers instead of three.

My second point of contention is with the argument that Hume's idea of natural justice leans toward a kind of lazy relativist approach to justice. I don't think Hume is saying that cannibalism is just simply because it exists. That is a lazy relativist fallacy. In fact Hume seems to say the opposite when he argues that our conceptions of justice are imposed seemingly arbitrarily on the random occurences that happen in this world. The actual event of one dude's eating another dude is not in itself bad unless we impose a certain sense of justice on that action. That imposition is what makes unjust.

So in connecting these two ideas, the idea that we as humans have evolved and the idea that our conceptions are in fact impositions of our slowly evolving selves, we can see a strong implicit argument that the idea of justice has, itself, evolved along with our practical use of it. When our concept of what is just expands, our practical use of it should find a better fit.

Another point Hume makes places him in the anti-relativist basket. He writes, "The convenience, or rather necessity, which leads to justice is so universal, and everywhere points so much to the same rules, that the habit takes place in all societies..." So, the idea of justice actually is universal. We all agree on the benefits of just society, we just differ on the particulars of the practice of just action.

While I say this, I understand your point about specific practices within societies that are seemingly unjust. Dudes eating other dudes seems wrong. But what I think is so ingenious of Hume's argument is simply that he leaves room for a progression toward an expanded agreement on justice. If we all agree that the general principle of justice is good (that justice is what is most beneficial to everyone)but specific societies seem to do unjust actions, then all that we have to do to get toward a more just (globally just) society is to start a dialogue with the supposedly unjust societies.

The more I turn Hume over in my head, the more I like him, because his theory of natural justice both takes the reality of differing views of particular justice into account while allowing humanity the ability to evolve toward a state of justerness (which I know is definitely not a word).