[lit-ideas] Re: SOS - BA vs Hare's prescriptive
- From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 18:52:02 -0700
Lawrence Helm wrote:
[some interesting things which I'm skipping over for now]
and
One can see that Taylor (at least at this point) is taking a very
different tack from Hare and yet I wonder if Hare doesn’t have the truer
hold on this matter. Do we really think as Taylor argues that we settle
for the BA, Best Account? Or do we with Hare believe our framework is
the truth and that it should be universalized.
This is fairly misleading. Hare isn't arguing that we first discover
some moral 'truth' and then work to get it universalized (or
universalised). He's arguing that something about the 'logic' of moral
language requires that anything we put forward as a moral judgment must
be universalizable: that if it's correct in such and such circumstances
then it must be correct in any similar circumstances (no idiosyncratic
judgments). Some have argued that this is trivially true with respect to
any judgment.
Robert Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
