What Kant might say to Hare
Mind 80 (318):295-297 (1971)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJohn R. Shook (2010). Peter Hare on the Philosophy of Curt John Ducasse. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 46 (1):47-52.
J. E. Hare (1996). The Moral Gap: Kantian Ethics, Human Limits, and God's Assistance. Oxford University Press.
Tom Carson (1993). Hare on Utilitarianism and Intuitive Morality. Erkenntnis 39 (3):305 - 331.
R. M. Hare (1993). Could Kant Have Been A Utilitarian? Utilitas 5 (01):1-.
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.
Jens Timmermann (2005). Why Kant Could Not Have Been a Utilitarian. Utilitas 17 (3):243-264.
Thomas L. Carson (1986). Hare's Defense of Utilitarianism. Philosophical Studies 50 (1):97 - 115.
Robert Gressis (2007). Review of John E. Hare, God and Morality: A Philosophical History. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2007 (11).
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads7 ( #133,587 of 549,513 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
