TOMITA Junya
Annals of Ethics, 69 191-204, Mar, 2020 Peer-reviewed
It could be said that universalizability is an accepted and plausible thesis for
moral discourse. It claims that value-judgments are valid only if they are universalizable.
One would not fail to notice that it was R. M. Hare who, in line
with Kant, built a unique theory upon the idea of universalizability. Hare presented
this thesis not as a substantial claim in normative ethics, but as one
based on ‘logic,’ which is counted as an innovation in the history of ethics.
Nevertheless, Hare’s argument for this thesis is said to contain a difficulty.
According to traditional interpretations, Hare’s second major work Freedom
and Reason(FR)left a logical leap. Hare in FR, they say, claims value-judgments
are universalizable because value-words have descriptive meaning. However,
the trivial fact of descriptive meaning does not logically entail such normative
requirements which the universalizability thesis implies.
This paper will argue that these traditional interpretations overlook the continuity
in Hare’s ethics, namely between his first major work Language of Morals(
LM)and FR. The argument for normative requirements of value-judgments
in FR presupposes the argument for universalizability in LM. In LM,
Hare did argue value-judgments are felicitous only if done in a universalizable
manner, for making value-judgments is a form of speech act, i. e. ‘decision of
principle.’ Given this, one will easily understand why universalizability as felicity
necessarily involve the normative requirements of value-judgements. Put in
another way, one will not be able to understand the argument in FR without
understanding the one in LM.
Hare submitted the universalizability thesis as a ‘logical’ thesis, and the word
‘logic’ here has a wider connotation, which includes internal rules of practice in
which we all are engaged. And this indicates Hare’s philosophical insight that
why and how we should universalize our value-judgements can only be grasped
from the point of view which we have as participants of normative practice.