Graduate studies at Western
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 47 (2):174-183 (1969)
|Abstract||Hare used his thesis of universalizability to generate specific normative results and a defense of utilitarianism. To accomplish the latter task, he enjoined that one consider oneself in various roles in a given situation, and that the concluding judgment must be one that is affirmable in any of the various roles. In effect this means that one must, says Hare, give equal weight to the interests of all involved parties, an axiom of utilitarianism. The paper argues that he did not succeed.|
|Keywords||universalizability utilitarianism proofs arguments|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Philip Pettit (1987). Universalizability Without Utilitarianism. Mind 96 (381):74-82.
R. M. Hare (1989). Universalizability and the Summing of Desires: Reply to Ingmar Persson. Theoria 55 (3):171-177.
W. Gregory Lycan (1969). Hare, Singer and Gewirth on Universalizability. Philosophical Quarterly 19 (75):135-144.
Hamid Vahid (2001). Skepticism and Varieties of Epistemic Universalizability. Journal of Philosophical Research 26:325-341.
Jonathan Bennett (1960). Moral Argument. Mind 69 (276):544-549.
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.
Tom Carson (1993). Hare on Utilitarianism and Intuitive Morality. Erkenntnis 39 (3):305 - 331.
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.
Added to index2010-08-10
Total downloads10 ( #114,662 of 750,480 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #62,892 of 750,480 )
How can I increase my downloads?