Ethics 74 (2):150-154 (1964)
|Abstract||Marcus singer's deduction of the generalization argument in "generalization in ethics" is not sound. The argument itself is invalid, But there is a valid moral principle which is very similar to the one singer thinks he has proved. This valid principle is that if the consequences of not having a rule against x would be undesirable, Then there should be a rule against x. But this is not the same as to say that if the consequences of everyone's doing x are undesirable, Then each person is obligated not to do x. (staff)|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jürgen Schröder (2002). The Supervenience Argument and the Generalization Problem. Erkenntnis 56 (3):319 - 328.
Keith Burgess-Jackson (1994). Anselm, Gaunilo, and Lost Island. Philosophy and Theology 8 (3):243-249.
Robert Lockie (2003). Relativism and Reflexivity. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 11 (3):319 – 339.
William Hasker (1995). ``Middle Knowledge: A Refutation Revisited&Quot. Faith and Philosophy 12 (2):223-236.
Jurgen Schroder (2002). The Supervenience Argument and the Generalization Problem. Erkenntnis 56 (3):319-28.
J. Howard Sobel (1967). 'Everyone', Consequences, and Generalization Arguments. Inquiry 10 (1-4):373-404.
Luca Castagnoli (2010). Ancient Self-Refutation: The Logic and History of the Self-Refutation Argument From Democritus to Augustine. Cambridge University Press.
Ralf M. Bader (2012). The Role of Kant's Refutation of Idealism. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 94 (1):53-73.
Brian O'Connor (2006). A Missing Step In Kant's Refutation of Idealism. Idealistic Studies 36 (2):83-95.
Roland Paul Blum (1970). The True Function of the Generalization Argument. Inquiry 13 (1-4):274 – 288.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #213,130 of 722,701 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?