Hume, Third Reading

Hume, using his belief that reason simply is a tool that asses the validity of our goals and tries to achieve them, makes the case in this reading that many beliefs humans hold (Justice, Property, Virtues, etc.) are simply weighted as good because they benefit or excite our passions. In this regard, his empiricist bent is clearly showing.

3.1.1 Moral Distinctions not deriv'd from reason-
Perceptions are the core way that ideas are acknowledged by the mind - this includes the passions. Moral good and evil only have value when viewed in relation to other objects. Good, Evil, Virtue and Vice are a posteri, as opposed to a priori, values. In other words, we learn these values after we have lived in the world - they are not universal truths.

3.1.2 Moral Distinctions deriv'd from a moral sense-
If an impression arises that we view as agreeable, or pleasant, it is considered a virtue; If an impression arises that is unfavorable or painful, it is a vice. Nature cannot account for what makes something virtuous or vicious, they are on a level playing field. That which most benefits or creates pleasure becomes a virtue, since this is derived from passions, it is an "artificial" view.

3.2.1 Justice, whether a natural or artificial virtue?-
Justice is an artificial virtue because it was created by humans as a means to encourage living together in societies and to control this aspect of life around the time that civilization developed. So it is morally good because human nature provided the motive for the establishment of justice.

3.2.2 Of the Origin of Justice and Property-
The relationship between men and their property is moral, not natural, and is based on justice. It is in public interest that we follow the laws of justice in relation to objects and property. Since we have a need for these rules and codes of conduct, it becomes apparent that there is nothing natural about them, or else we wouldn't need them in the first place.

3.3.3 Of the rules, which determine property-
Property is not a natural thing. The relationship between a person and his/her property is purely mental, it is an aspect of the imagination. The idea of property arose around the time of civilization.

3.3.4 Of the transference of property by consent-
The first person to claim/create a piece of property/object becomes the owner of it. The object can only be transferred via occupation, prescription, accession, or succession. Again, these are all artificial and imaginary, rather than absolute, rules. It is a symbolic transfer when this happens.

3.3.5 Of the Obligation of Promises-
A promise is an unnatural change in the obligation of person and his sentiments. Promises are necessary inventions created to help smoothen human relations in societies. This does not, however, mean that there is not moral obligation to fulfill them,

3.3.6 Some further reflections concerning justice and injustice-
The classical interpretation of law is that certain things are eternal, natural, and absolute, Hume argues that this is not the case, they are indeed artificial. Injustice is concerned with self-interest, while justice is concerned with morality.

Confusing/Interesting

"The State of Nature, therefore, is to be regarded as a mere fiction, not unlike that of the Golden age, which poets have invented; only with this difference, that the former is described as full of war, violence, and injustice; whereas the latter is painted out to us, as the most charming and peaceable condition, that can possible be imagined. (312/3.2.2)"

I don't understand how Hume has refuted the idea of "the State of Nature". Everything he says seems to uphold the idea that humans needed to form societies in order to prevent from killing and fighting each other. The notions of property, justice, etc. all these are devised, according to Hume, to stop people from fighting and falling apart and becoming extinct. Is that not the primary thrust of the idea of the State of Nature?