Throughout his career as moral philosopher Hare has insisted that there is a rational way of arriving at substantive moral judgements. Hare develops this view - first presented in ' The language of morals' (1952) and ' Universalizability' (1955) - into the claim that rational agents are required to adopt utilitarian solutions to moral disputes. In ' Freedom and reason ' (1963) this claim is defended with reference to the view that the formal features of moral language (universalizability and prescriptivity)commit moral agents to a certain method of reasoning, and that this method of reasoning, when conjoined with facts about people's desires and preferences, leads us to accept substantive moral judgements consistent with those required by a form of utilitarianism. This view features throughout Hare's subsequent work, but the argument for it undergoes change. This means change in the defence of the claim that the meta-theory Universal Prescriptivism is consistent with a form of normative utilitarian theory, as this claim is argued for in 'Ethical theory and utilitarianism' (1976) and 'Moral Thinking' (1981). I shall endeavour to trace the chronological development of Hare's thinking, and will concentrate on developments in the argument for a theory of act-utilitarianism. I shall argue that the argument for utilitarianism gives rise to two major problems which arise from a specific feature of the argument, namely, the attempt to run the resolution of bi-lateral and multi-lateral cases of conflict along lines analogous to the resolution of conflict in the single-person case. Hare's argument requires that a decision-maker must identify the person with whom he reverses roles as himself, and that he must be prepared to concede that the things his recipient has good reasons for wanting are also reasons for him to want the same things. I argue that it is not possible to make coherent sense of the identity of the person in the reversed-role situation and that the motivational states a decision -maker is expected to deem 'his own' are not properly states of himself. If I am right, the 'identity'-question sits at the root of a motivational gap in Hare's theory.

This thesis looks at two theories of universalizability: Immanuel Kant's deontological one and R. M. Hare's utilitarian one. It also looks at criticisms of both theories by David Wiggins. It concludes that his arguments against Hare are decisive because the moral theory that follows from Hare's version of the claim that moral judgements must be universalizable is incompatible with several basic requirements on moral theories. Wiggins' criticism of Kant, on the other hand, centres on a technical point that is overcome by an interpretation of Kant's tests for the universalizability of maxims that is given by Onora Nell. Finally the thesis argues that Kant's rational theory of ethics is superior to Wiggins' subjectivist claims because it both reflects our common sense conception of ethics and provides a rational basis for evaluating moral judgements.

No description available.

Mémoire numérisé par la Direction des bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal.

This dissertation treats about the relation between information and action in moral judgments. First of all, we explicit the logical problem, called antinomy, present in the descriptive ethics theories which do not admit the prescriptive factor of the moral judgments. Secondly we present the logical problem, called paradox, present in Austin s linguistic theory (which gave rise to the ethical prescriptivism) that does not admit the descriptive factor of moral judgments. After that, we present Hare s theory as synthesis, which gathers descriptive and prescriptive factors, and, because of this, does not make the same mistakes of the theories previously developed. Although, some critics - Geach, Sen and Azevedo accused Hare of being an existential descriptivist. More precisely, Sen and Geach accused him of being descriptivist, whereas Sen and Azevedo accused him of being existentialist. This work shows that those accusations occur because of the failure in the interpretation of the relation between descriptive and prescriptive factors on Hare s formulation about moral judgments. For the author, the supervenience (which guarantees that the moral choices must be the same when the same factual elements are presented) is the fundament of the universalizability (which guarantees that the moral action must be the same independently of the roles played on the moral action). However, these formulations do not prevent that the author of the moral judgment gather more information and start acting differently, which would not be possible for a descriptivist. Because of this, we formulated a symbolic model, which relates cultural pattern, prescribed pattern and value; and, moreover, which shows the temporal aspects and the change aspects. Another issue is about the necessity of the critical thought, for Hare, in the formulation of universal ethics. So, this work will explicit the reasons why Hare cannot be called existential descriptivist. / Esta dissertação trata da relação entre informação e ação nos juízos morais. Primeiramente é explicitado o problema lógico, denominado de antinomia, presentes nas teorias éticas descritivistas que não admitem o fator prescritivo dos juízos morais. Em segundo lugar, é apresentado o problema lógico, denominado de paradoxo, presente na teoria lingüística de Austin (que deu origem ao prescritivismo ético) a qual não admite o fator descritivo dos juízos morais. Posteriormente, a teoria de Hare é apresentada como síntese, que une o fator descritivo e o prescritivo, e que, por isso, não comete os mesmos erros das teorias desenvolvidas anteriormente. Porém, alguns críticos Geach, Sen e Azevedo acusaram Hare de ser um descritivista existencial. Mais precisamente: Sen e Geach o acusaram de ser descritivista; ao passo que Sen e Azevedo o acusaram de ser existencialista. Este trabalho mostra que estas acusações ocorrem pela falha na interpretação da relação entre fator descritivo e prescritivo na formulação de Hare sobre os juízos morais. Para o autor, a superveniência (que garante que as escolhas morais devem ser as mesmas, quando apresentados os mesmos elementos fatuais) é o fundamento da universalizabilidade (que garante que a ação moral deve ser a mesma independente dos papéis representados na ação moral). Mas, essas formulações não impedem que o autor do juízo moral reúna novas informações e passe a agir de forma diferente, o que não seria possível para um descritivista. Por isso, formulamos um modelo simbólico, o qual relaciona padrão cultural, padrão prescrito e valor; e, além disso, que mostra os aspectos temporais e de mudança. Outra questão gira em torno da necessidade do pensamento crítico, para Hare, na formulação de uma ética universal. Dessa forma, neste trabalho ficará explicitado os motivos pelos quais Hare não poder ser chamado de descritivista existencial. / Mestre em Filosofia