R. M. Hare: Freedom and Reason

question 24

Essay

R. M. Hare: Freedom and Reason
Hare argues that moral judgments are universalizable and prescriptive. That is, he claims that to genuinely make a moral judgment, one must be willing to universalize that judgment-if you claim that another person ought not do x, you must also be willing to admit that you ought not do x if faced with the same circumstances. Furthermore, he maintains that moral judgments are characteristically prescriptive, such that making the judgment "I ought to do x" involves (among other things) accepting the prescription "Let me do x."
Given these two features of moral judgments, Hare develops a theory of moral reasoning that parallels scientific reasoning. Like scientific reasoning, moral reasoning involves assessing general principles by attempting to falsify their particular consequences. While scientific hypotheses can be falsified only by actual observations, however, Hare claims that moral principles can be reasonably rejected on the basis of merely supposed cases. Thus, to test the principle "creditors always ought to imprison their debtors," we need not find a case that contradicts the principle; it is sufficient if we can imagine a case in which a creditor ought not to imprison a debtor.
In Hare's view, moral reasoning involves four necessary ingredients: (i) a knowledge of all the relevant facts of the case, (ii) an appreciation of the logical framework provided by the constraints of universalizability and prescriptivity, (iii) a set of inclinations, and (iv) the power to imagine what it is like to be in the shoes of others. To discover what we morally ought to do, we must ask whether we would be able to universalize the principles we are inclined to accept. Hare concludes by considering how one might try to escape from the type of moral arguments he advocates. He concludes that although we can often rationally persuade others to adopt our moral views, it might be impossible, even in principle, to do so when dealing with people who have very unusual inclinations.
-Describe the case of the debtor that Hare presents, and explain the kind of moral reasoning that goes on in this case. What method does Hare think we ought to use to reason about ethics, generally?

---

Definitions:

Outgroup Homogeneity Bias

The assumption that outgroup members are more similar to one another than ingroup members are to one another.

Outgroup Homogeneity Bias

The perception that individuals outside one's own group are more similar to each other than they really are.

Outgroup Members

Individuals who are perceived as not belonging to one's own group, often defined in contrast to ingroup members, and may be subject to differing treatment or biases.

Outgroup Homogeneity Effect

A psychological phenomenon in which an individual perceives members of a group to which they do not belong as being more similar to each other than they actually are.