Notes
Anscombe (1981, p. 52).
Cf. Rousseau (1987).
On the need for distinct and separate levels of moral thinking, (see Hare 1981). Hare speaks of intuitive and critical thinking. I would suppose the levels include one of fundamental moral principles, one of public morality, one of informal social rules, another of enforced legal rules and policies. Hare writes from a consequentialist standpoint, but the point he is making is not sectarian: both consequentialists and nonconseqentialists will need to distinguish various levels of moral thinking.
References
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1981). War and murder. Reprinted in her Ethics, religion, and politics (pp. 51–61). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Gaus, G. (2011). The order of public reason: A theory of freedom and morality in a diverse and bounded world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral thinking: Its levels, method, and point. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J. (1996). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice, rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rousseau, J.-J. (1987). The social contract. In The basic political writings (Ed. and Trans: Cress D.) (pp. 139–227). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Arneson, R. Rejecting the order of public reason . Philos Stud 170, 537–544 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-013-0268-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-013-0268-6