[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]


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: