Hume claims that moral assessments refer to character; it is character of which we morally approve and disapprove. This essay explores what Hume means by “character.” Is it true that moral assessments refer to character, and should Hume think this given his other commitments in moral philosophy and moral psychology? I discuss two prominent themes—namely, Hume’s views on moral responsibility; and Hume’s comparison of moral feelings with feelings of love—to see what light these themes can shed on Hume’s broader views about moral assessment. I argue that at least according to a traditional understanding of the term, character could not plausibly have a role to play in Hume’s account of moral assessment, but that Hume’s moral theory could require a conception of character different from this traditional one: a conception according to which character need not be the standard one that holds character to be consistent, stable, and well-integrated. In morally assessing others, we do not do so on the basis of their characters (at least in any robust sense of character), but on the basis of their motivational states. My account of Hume’s theory of the responsibility, passions and the moral sentiments leaves intact the central Humean insights about the conditions for action and the arousal of the moral sentiment, suggesting what Hume could have said, both more plausibly and without undermining the key features of his moral psychology. And it also shows that Hume’s moral theory has no need for a robust conception of character.

This essay treats the final version of Hume’s Essays, Volume 1, as an artfully shaped whole. Framed by essays on taste that address the interaction of personal and social dynamics, the volume is organized into loose clusters of political and moral essays that share a common pattern of offering multiple approaches to the issues they examine and pursuing a given idea until it reaches a point of excess that generates a salutary correction. This activity circumscribes an inexact range of balance, which is left for the reader to resolve or, better, to continue. In this, Hume’s Essays invite readers to participate in the interaction between self-formation and cultural forms that is motor of Hume’s post-skeptical philosophy and the genre of the essay alike.

There is a prominent place in recent work on Hume’s moral philosophy for the idea that Hume is best placed in the tradition of virtue ethics. I argue in this paper that Hume’s theory of justice cannot be given a virtue-theoretic construal. I argue that Hume should rather be placed in the tradition of theorizing about justice inaugurated by Grotius. In this tradition, the moral obligation to justice is spelled out in terms of the necessity of respect for property, for contracts, and for political authority in a stable and peaceful society. In this tradition, furthermore, justice is regarded as primarily as a matter of respecting perfect rights, and, relatedly, as primarily manifest in omissions rather than in actions. The search for an agent-state definitive of Hume’s just person is fruitless, I suggest, because Hume himself gives reasons to believe that there is no such thing. I argue that for Hume the just person is, simply, someone who obeys the conventions that define the nature of justice, regardless of why she does so.