Philosophical Studies 50 (1):97 - 115 (1986)
|Abstract||R. M. Hare's Nora/ Thinking is surely one of the most compelling defenses of utilitarianism to appear in many years. Hare defends utilitarianism at some length against the objection that it has consequences that are inconsistent with our common-sense or intuitive moral judgments. Hare also offers a positive argument for utiTitarianism. In this paper I shall only concern myself with the latter argument. In the first part of the paper, I shall set out Hare's argument in some detail. In the second part of the paper, I shall suggest criticisms of Hare's argument. I shall argue that two of the assumptions upon..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Matej Sušnik (2009). The Amoralist Objection and the Method of Moral Reasoning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 9 (1):91-100.
R. M. Hare (1999). Objective Prescriptions, and Other Essays. Oxford University Press.
A. J. Dale (1985). Hare on Supervenience: Remarks on R.M. Hare's Supervenience. Mind 94 (October):599-600.
John J. McDermott (2010). Philosophical Remarks on Peter Hare. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 46 (1):73-77.
Michael McDermott (1983). Hare's Argument for Utilitarianism. Philosophical Quarterly 33 (133):386-391.
James W. McGray (1986). From Universal Prescriptivism to Utilitarianism. Philosophy Research Archives 12:79-86.
Harold J. White (1969). An Analysis of Hare's Application of the Thesis of Universalizability in His Moral Arguments. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 47 (2):174-183.
Wlodek Rabinowicz & Bertil Strömberg (1996). What If I Were in His Shoes? On Hare's Argument for Preference Utilitarianism. Theoria 62 (1-2):95-123.
Tom Carson (1993). Hare on Utilitarianism and Intuitive Morality. Erkenntnis 39 (3):305 - 331.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads33 ( #41,931 of 722,775 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,775 )
How can I increase my downloads?