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.