This paper critically analyses Brad Hooker's attempt to undercut pluralism by arguing that any plausible set of prima facie duties can be derived from a more fundamental rule consequentialist principle. It is argued that this conclusion is foreshadowed by the rationalist and epistemologically realist interpretation that Hooker imposes on his chosen methodology of reflective equilibrium; he is not describing pluralism in its strongest and most plausible version and a more plausible version of pluralism is described and defended.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Ross-Style Pluralism Versus Rule-Consequentialism.Brad Hooker - 1996 - Mind 105 (420):531-552.
Pluralism: The Philosophy and Politics of Diversity.Maria Baghramian & Attracta Ingram (eds.) - 2000 - Routledge.
Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom: A Tour of Logical Pluralism.Roy T. Cook - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (6):492-504.
Biocentric Consequentialism and Value-Pluralism: A Response to Alan Carter.Robin Attfield - 2005 - Utilitas 17 (1):85-92.
Sophisticated Rule Consequentialism: Some Simple Objections.Richard Arneson - 2005 - Philosophical Issues 15 (1):235–251.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads28 ( #175,633 of 2,146,211 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #387,123 of 2,146,211 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.