David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Erkenntnis 39 (3):305 - 331 (1993)
InMoral Thinking R. M. Hare offers a very influential defense of utilitarianism against intuitive objections. Hare's argument is roughly that utilitarianism conflicts with defensible moral intuitions only in unusual cases and that, in such cases, even defensible moral intuitions are unreliable. This paper reconstructs Hare's arguments and argues that they presuppose the success of his problematic proof of utilitarianism. Contrary to what many have thought, Hare's negative defense of utilitarianism against intuitive objections is not separable from his proof. In the second part of the paper I argue that Hare does not succeed in defending utilitarianism against the objection that it is too demanding. The final section of the paper sketches a substantially revised version of Hare's reply to intuitive objections. So revised, the argument is independent of Hare's proof and affords a plausible answer to the objection that utilitarianism is too demanding.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
W. D. Ross (2002). The Right and the Good. Clarendon Press.
R. M. Hare (1981). Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point. Oxford University Press.
John Jamieson Carswell Smart & Bernard Williams (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press.
Shelly Kagan (1989). The Limits of Morality. Oxford University Press.
Henry Sidgwick (1907/1996). The Methods of Ethics. Thoemmes Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Matej Sušnik (2009). The Amoralist Objection and the Method of Moral Reasoning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 9 (1):91-100.
Robert Gressis (2007). Review: Hare, John E., God and Morality: A Philosophical History. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2007 (11).
Michael McDermott (1983). Hare's Argument for Utilitarianism. Philosophical Quarterly 33 (133):386-391.
R. Jo Kornegay (2004). Hare's Utilitarianism and the Free-Rider Problem. Dialogue 43 (3):419-442.
Alison Hills (2010). Utilitarianism, Contractualism and Demandingness. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (239):225-242.
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.
Thomas L. Carson (1986). Hare's Defense of Utilitarianism. Philosophical Studies 50 (1):97 - 115.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads73 ( #54,847 of 1,789,925 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #197,702 of 1,789,925 )
How can I increase my downloads?