Perhaps Hareians should take Griceians PRETTY MORE SERIOUSLY than they do!
Hare, R. M.
1949
“Imperative Sentences.” Mind, n.s., 58 (January 1949): 21-39. Reprinted, with appendix, as chap. 1 of PI.
Jackson comments:
"Hare shows that there can be a logic of imperatives as well as of indicatives."
"Why is this important?"
"Because some writers “think that, because ethical sentences are NOT true indicatives, logical methods cannot be used in ethics with as much confidence as in other enquiries.”"
If Hare can show
(1) that ethical sentences are (or entail) imperatives and
(2) that there is a logic of imperatives, then he can rescue ethics from the ir-rationalists."
"Every imperative, like every indicative, has two parts: a descriptor, which describes a state of affairs, and a dictor, which describes the mood (either imperative or indicative).
“All men are mortal” and
“Let all men be mortal”
have the same descriptor (men mor-tal) but different dictors.
“[S]ince logic is mainly about descriptors, and commands contain descriptors, commands are a proper concern of the logician.”
Here is an example of a valid inference in which all the sentences are imperatives:
Let all men be mortal;
let Socrates be a man;
therefore,
let Socrates be mortal.
This is no less valid than the corresponding inference in the indicative mood: All men are mor-tal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal.
1950
Review of Moral Obligation and Knowledge and Perception, by H. A. Prichard. The Oxford Magazine 68 (15 June 1950): 558. Hare praises Prichard’s rejection of “the objectivism of Moore” and “the naturalism of Mill and others.” That a situation has certain characteristics does not entail that one “ought to try to bring it about.” Prichard, to his credit, understood “how difficult and per-plexing a subject philosophy is.”
Review of Morality and God, by Edward Wales Hirst. Philosophy 25 (October 1950): 376-7. Hare criticizes Hirst for violating Hume’s Law—with a twist. Instead of deriving values from natural facts, 1
Hirst derives them from supernatural facts (about God’s existence and character). Hare says that if Christianity is to be relevant to “present-day ethical controversies,” it must come to grips with recent “logical researches.”
“Theology and Falsification: A Symposium.” University 1 (1950-51): xx-xx. Reprinted as appendix to chap. 1 of ERE. Hare replies to Antony Flew’s argument that since nothing is allowed by theists to count against their claims, their “claims” are not assertions. Hare agrees that religious claims are not assertions, but denies that they are unimportant. They are expressions of a blik, or worldview (or at-titude toward the world). Even atheists have a blik. “Flew has shown that a blik does not consist in an assertion or system of them; but nevertheless it is very important to have the right blik.” It sounds as though Hare is saying that religious claims can be understood only from within a blik, i.e., that there is no transcendent space from which to evaluate bliks as true or false.
1951
“Freedom of the Will.” The Aristotelian Society, supplementary volume 25 (1951): 201-16. Reprinted, with one omission, as chap. 1 of EMC. Hare asks what it is about the word “ought” that gives rise to the “‘ought’ implies ‘can’” principle. First, he argues that the principle is not limited to moral uses of “ought.” It applies when-ever one uses “ought” to give advice or guidance. “You cannot in-struct people in a rule to do the impossible.” “Ought” implies “can” because “ought” is prescriptive. Second, he shows how advice differs from persuasion. The latter is a success concept (“achievement word”). Third, viewing moral judgment as persuasion leads to “ethi-cal irrationalism,” as exemplified by Stevenson’s emotivism. Advice is directed to persons qua cognitive (i.e., free and rational) beings. Per-suasion is directed to persons qua affective beings. (Hare is using “persuasion” to mean nonrational persuasion.)
Review of The Philosophy of Plato, by G. C. Field. Mind, n.s., 60 (January 1951): 128-9. Hare criticizes “Platonists” such as Field for not using “the methods of logical analysis” in their studies of Plato. Some of Plato’s ontological claims, for example, can be understood (and defended) as logical claims. Hare also criticizes Field for not paying sufficient attention to Plato’s practical philosophy.
Review of An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics, by Stephen Edelston Toulmin. The Philosophical Quarterly 1 (July 1951): 372-5. Hare praises Toulmin for asking the relevant ques-tion—“What to do”—but finds fault with his answer. Toulmin violates Hume’s Law by inferring an “ought” (X provides a good reason to act) from an “is” (X falls under a practice that minimizes conflicts of inter-est). No appeal to usage can establish a moral judgment. “The trick is performed only by smuggling in the essential moral premiss dis-guised as a rule of inference. . . .”
Review of Value: A Cooperative Enquiry, ed. Ray Lepley. Mind, n.s., 60 (July 1951): 430-3. Hare criticizes the contributors to this volume for presupposing what should be questioned, namely, that value can and should be studied scientifically. What the contributors (philosophers generally) should do is study the logical behavior of “good” and other evaluative terms. This study would show that “good” functions very differently from “brown.” Another presupposi-tion is that words such as “good” have referents. This is decriptivism, which leads to relativism. The whole “enquiry” is therefore mis-placed.
1952
Review of Morals and Revelation, by H. D. Lewis. Philosophy 27 (October 1952): 374-5. Hare criticizes Lewis for failing to stress “the distinction between ethics, considered as the study . . . of moral thought, and morals, in the sense of the actual propounding of moral judgments and systems.” Hare also rejects the idea that ethics is a “battle” between objectivists and skeptics. Viewing it that way will re-tard progress.
The Language of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952. See here for a summary.
1954
3
Review of The Ethics of Aristotle, trans. J. A. K. Thomson. The Oxford Magazine 72 (25 February 1954): 240. Hare praises the readability of the book, but criticizes the translator for “missing im-portant philosophical points.”
Review of What Is Value? An Essay in Philosophical Analysis, by Everett W. Hall. Mind, n.s., 63 (April 1954): 262-9. Hare praises Hall for using “linguistic analysis,” but criticizes Hall’s analy-sis. Hall’s aim is to show that value, like fact, is “in the world” (i.e., objective), albeit in a different way. His method is to show, inter alia, that value-sentences are not reducible to factual sentences. Specifi-cally, it is to show that the “syntax” of imperatives is “completely dif-ferent from” that of indicatives. Hare argues that the alleged differ-ences do not exist. “Thus Professor Hall is unsuccessful in establish-ing a difference between the logics of singular imperatives and singu-lar indicatives.”
Review of Philosophy and Psycho-analysis, by John Wisdom. Philosophy 29 (July 1954): 284-6. Hare praises Wisdom’s “subtle mind,” then proceeds to criticize him. Wisdom came to despair of providing a logical analysis of “expressions of common speech.” In-stead of taking up the difficult challenge of “construct[ing] simpler models of language which would illuminate its logic,” Wisdom “aban-don[ed] formal analysis altogether.” In other words, Wisdom gave up and retreated to “literature.” Wisdom is to Socrates and the sophists as Wisdom’s successors are to Plato and Aristotle. The former “had their fun”; the latter must do the hard work of analysis.
“Universalisability.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, n.s., 55 (1954-55): 295-312. Reprinted as chap. 2 of EMC. Hare argues that moral judgments are “U-type valuations,” i.e., universal prescriptions. They are not “E-type valuations,” i.e., singular pre-scriptions (or imperatives). Universality differs from generality. The former is opposed to singularity or particularity, the latter to specific-ity. Universality is all or nothing; generality is a matter of degree. “One ought not to tell lies” is more general than “One ought not to tell lies unless this is necessary in order to save innocent lives,” since it has no exceptions; but both are universal, since neither makes refer-ence to individuals (particulars). Hare replies to the objections that 4
(1) he makes the choice between principles a matter of inclination and (2) he makes the choice between principles arbitrary.
1955
“Ethics and Politics.” The Listener 54 (13 October 1955): 593-4; The Listener 54 (xx October 1955): 651-xx. First essay (of two) reprinted as chap. 1 (“Can I Be Blamed for Obeying Orders?”) of AMP. Hare criticizes the argument from “S wills me to do x” to “I ought to do x.” The premise is descriptive, the conclusion evaluative. Hence, the inference violates Hume’s Law. To repair the structural defect, one must add an evaluative premise to the effect that I ought to do whatever S wills, and one must decide whether to endorse this principle. Morality consists of making decisions of principle. Every-one, even a soldier, is responsible for his or her behavior. (Cf. Sar-tre.) Moral choice (for normal adults) is inescapable. We can leave means to the experts, but ends are up to us, as individuals.
1956
Review of Ethics, by P. H. Nowell-Smith. Philosophy 31 (January 1956): 89-92. This is “a very thoughtful and stimulating book.” Hare criticizes Nowell-Smith’s terms “contextually implies” and “logi-cally odd,” neither of which is “entirely clear.” Hare praises Nowell-Smith’s classification of words into D-words (descriptive), A-words (intermediate), and G-words (evaluative). A-words, such as “terrify-ing” and “funny,” have different meanings in different contexts. This variety of meanings generates some of the perplexities experienced by logicians. Hare says he doesn’t understand what Nowell-Smith means when the latter says that he is “a champion of the traditional moral philosophy.”
Review of Filosofía Analitica e Giurisprudenza, by Uberto Scar-pelli. Mind, n.s., 65 (January 1956): 102-3. This is “an extremely penetrating essay.” Hare expresses hope that the philosophy being done in English-speaking countries and on the continent of Europe (France, Germany, and Italy) will converge. One ground for hope is the interest among Italian jurisprudents (such as Scarpelli) in “logical analysis as an aid to the study of law.” Hare encourages jurispru-
5
dents to conduct their logical inquiries “in as concrete terms as pos-sible, with more attention to the actual discourse and decisions of the courts than to the abstract, tidy theories of jurists.”
1957
“Geach: Good and Evil.” Analysis 17 (April 1957): 103-11. Re-printed, with “small amendments,” as chap. 3 of EMC. Hare says that Geach’s target—“The Oxford Moralists”—is too heterogeneous to be of any use. Hare agrees with some of the views attributed to The Oxford Moralists but not to all. He says Geach should name people instead of creating such a “composite . . . creature.” Geach conflates prescriptivism and emotivism: “To commend may be to seek to guide choice; but it certainly is not necessarily to seek to influence or affect choice.” As for Geach’s own theory of the meaning of “good,” Hare says it is correct where “good” precedes a functional word, such as “hygrometer,” but incorrect where it precedes a nonfunctional word, such as “sunset.” Unfortunately for Geach, “the mere occurrence of a functional word after ‘good’ is normally an indication that the context is not a moral one” (italics in original). Hare then criticizes Geach for thinking that “man” is a functional word. Geach would probably consider Hare’s criticism question-begging, for he (Geach) is a teleologist (like Aristotle, but unlike Hare) who believes that there is a specific good for man.
“Oxford Moral Philosophy.” The Listener 57 (21 February 1957): 311; The Listener 57 (28 March 1957): 520. These are letters to the editor. In the first letter, Hare criticizes G. E. M. Anscombe’s talk “Does Oxford Moral Philosophy Corrupt Youth?” (The Listener 57 [14 February 1957]: 266-7, 271). Anscombe argued that Oxford moral philosophy does not corrupt youth, since that implies that youth would not otherwise be corrupted. In fact, “Oxford moral philosophy is perfectly in tune with the highest and best ideals of the country at large. . . .” These ideals include consequentialism, with its thesis of negative responsibility (i.e., responsibility for what one allows, not merely for what one does). Hare accuses Anscombe of “tortuous sar-casms” and of “hat[ing]” certain people or views. Her method is to al-lude to certain philosophical views—which are caricatures—and then say, “Isn’t this very much in line with. . . ,” hoping thereby to turn the
6
listener against the views. Hare denies that students who go to Ox-ford will meet the sort of corrupting people Anscombe describes. In the second letter, which is immediately preceded by a letter from Anscombe, Hare makes a number of sarcastic and insulting points. As this exchange shows, Anscombe (1919-2001) and Hare (1919-2002) did not get along.
Review of The Problem of Knowledge, by A. J. Ayer, and Logic and Knowledge: Essays, 1901-1950, by Bertrand Russell. The Spectator (4 January 1957): 25-6. Hare praises Ayer’s book for its “rare combination of vigour and maturity.” He praises Ayer person-ally for being “more concerned with the truth than with self-defence.” Russell’s book makes some of his essays accessible, but it’s badly ed-ited. Hare says it contains “many advertisements of [the editor’s] own rather adolescent opinions about philosophy and philosophers.” Hare also takes a swipe at Russell for journeying from common sense (which is good) but never coming back (which is bad). Common sense should lead to paradox and then back to “an illumined com-mon sense.”
Review of British Philosophy in the Mid-Century, by C. A. Mace. The Spectator (1957): xx-xx. I have been unable to locate this item.
“Are Discoveries About the Uses of Words Empirical?” The Jour-nal of Philosophy 54 (November 1957): 741-50. Full version, en-titled “Philosophical Discoveries,” printed in Mind, n.s., 69 (April 1960): 145-62. Reprinted, revised, as chap. 2 (“Philosophical Discoveries”) of EPMe. Hare describes a dilemma: Either philoso-phical statements are empirical discoveries (about how words are used) or philosophical statements are decisions (about how to use words); if they are empirical discoveries, then they are contingent; if they are decisions, then they aren’t the sort of thing that can be known. But philosophers want to say both that their statements are necessary and that they are knowable. Hare escapes between the horns of the dilemma, but not by postulating (like the “metaphysi-cians”) a “non-empirical order of being,” i.e., a realm of synthetic a priori statements. Philosophical statements are neither empirical dis-coveries nor decisions, but instances of remembering. (Compare Plato.) The philosopher’s job is to elucidate (Hare’s word) concepts 7
that we learned and use but haven’t brought before our minds. It is to say what we know when we know something. It is to discover a definition.
Review of Philosophical Analysis: Its Development Between the Two World Wars, by J. O. Urmson, and The Revolution in Phi-losophy, by A. J. Ayer et al. Philosophische Rundschau 5 (1957): 269-80. This review is in German. Since I don’t know Ger-man and don’t have an English translation, I can’t annotate it.
“Religion and Morals.” Chap. 7 in Faith and Logic: Oxford Es-says in Philosophical Theology, edited by Basil Mitchell, 176-93. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1957. Reprinted as chap. 2 of ERE. Logical positivists considered ethical and religious utterances meaningless, since (1) they defined “meaning” in terms of knowing what would have to be case for an utterance to be true and (2) they believed that ethical and religious utterances lack truth value. Hare says this was not a criterion of meaningfulness but of “empiricality.” Different types of utterance can have different types of meaning. Re-ligious discourse hasn’t been studied as much as other types, such as scientific discourse. Many philosophers lack religious experience (or are uninterested in religion), and many of those who have reli-gious experience lack philosophical expertise. Hare proceeds to dis-play similarities between moral and religious language. The word “god,” for example, has both evaluative and descriptive meaning. It prescribes behavior (e.g., worship) and conveys information.
1959
“Broad’s Approach to Moral Philosophy.” Chap. 18 in The Phi-losophy of C. D. Broad, edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, 563-77. The Library of Living Philosophers, vol. 10. New York: Tudor Publishing Company, 1959. Reprinted as chap. 1 of EPMe. C. D. Broad wrote in Five Types of Ethical Theory that “The interest of eth-ics is . . . almost entirely theoretical.” He appeared to be saying that ethics has no bearing on practical moral questions. Hare says that when he read Broad, as an undergraduate, he was “scandalised.” Hare had gone into philosophy precisely because it promised assis-tance in answering such questions. Hare traces Broad’s view of eth-
8
ics to G. E. Moore, who, with H. A. Prichard, preceded—and influ-enced—the logical positivists (including the emotivists). (It’s often thought that it was logical positivism that made ethics irrelevant to practical affairs.) Hare admits that his “irritation at Broad’s remarks was entirely unjustified,” since it stemmed from ignorance of the his-tory of ethics. What, then, can ethics contribute to answering practi-cal moral questions? Two things. First, it clarifies the questions by distinguishing between factual, conceptual, and evaluative state-ments. Second, by showing (through analysis) that moral judgments are universalizable, it eliminates certain actions, viz., those that one is not willing (or able) to universalize.
1960
“A School for Philosophers.” Ratio 2 (February 1960): 107-20. Reprinted as chap. 3 of EPMe. Hare explains how philosophy in Great Britain differs from philosophy in Germany. The same subject is being studied, but “in two different ways.” Hare describes the daily routine of fellows and tutors. Tutors teach pupils to think effectively and to express their thoughts clearly. Regular seminars, which are attended by other fellows and tutors (as well as pupils), serve as test-ing grounds for ideas. These seminars are highly structured and demanding, like chess. Rhetoric and evasion are not accepted. Brit-ish philosophers are impatient with obscure, overblown prose. Writ-ing books is a by-product of teaching and discussing. The best way to get a book read is to make it “short, clear and to the point.” As for the claim that British philosophers don’t do metaphysics, Hare de-nies it. It’s simply not called metaphysics. British philosophers call it logic. It is oriented to the study of word meanings (uses). Its aim is to avoid linguistic pitfalls.
Review of An Enquiry into Goodness, by F. E. Sparshott. The Philosophical Quarterly 10 (October 1960): 372-4. The book is well organized and comprehensive, in the sense that it treats most of the “topical problems about philosophical method,” but the discus-sion is “elusive.” Hare says he “was left with the impression that [Sparshott] had been sitting on the fence.” Sparshott claims that commendation is not essential to “good,” since there are other ways to commend X besides saying that it’s a good X. “A similar argument would show that the function of entering into an undertaking was not ‘essential to’ the words ‘I promise’; for can we not enter into under-takings by many other means than saying ‘I promise’?” The book, while instructive, does not contain “a clear-cut train of reasoning.” It is inferior to G. E. Moore’s Principia Ethica, which Sparshott deni-grates.
“‘Rien n’a d’importance’: l’anéantissement des valeurs est-il pensable?” In La Philosophie Analytique, edited by L. Beck, xx-xx. Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1959/1960. Reprinted (in Eng-lish, as “‘Nothing Matters’: Is ‘the Annihilation of Values’ Some-thing That Could Happen?”) as chap. 4 of AMP. Hare tells the story of a young man of his acquaintance who read Albert Camus’s L’Etranger (The Stranger) and insisted that “nothing matters.” Hare sat him down for a discussion. He showed the young man that to say that something matters is to express concern for (or about) it, “to be disposed to make certain choices, certain efforts, in the attempt to affect in some way that about which [one is] concerned.” To say that nothing matters is to say that one is unconcerned about “absolutely everything.” The young man admitted that he was concerned about “many things.” In the remainder of the essay, Hare discusses (1) the sources of our values, (2) the impossibility of annihilating values “as a whole” (since “a man is a valuing creature”), (3) the pointlessness of quarrels over whether values are objective, and (4) the confusion be-tween subjectivism (which is an ethical position) and relativism (which is a moral position). In modern parlance, subjectivism is a metaethical theory, while relativism is a normative ethical theory. Hare adds that relativism is “an absurd position”—and “a very perni-cious view” to boot!
“Ethics.” In Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy and Philoso-phers, edited by J. O. Urmson, xx-xx. London: Hutchinson, 1960. Reprinted as chap. 4 of EMC. Reprinted with minor changes in The Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy and Philosophers, new rev. ed., edited by J. O. Urmson and Jonathan Rée, 100-9. London: Unwin Hyman, 1989. Hare distin-guishes between normative ethics (which he calls “morals”), descrip-tive ethics, and metaethics (which he calls “ethics” or “ethics proper”). Ethics is the philosophical study of morals. “We cannot, even if we 10
can establish the meaning of the moral words, pass from this to con-clusions of substance about moral questions.” (Hare appears to have changed his mind about this by the time he wrote Freedom and Rea-son.) Hare then discusses naturalism (which includes supernatural-ism), intuitionism, and emotivism, which are ethical (i.e., metaethical) theories. Along the way, he distinguishes between relativism and subjectivism. Relativism is a moral doctrine (i.e., a normative ethical theory), while subjectivism is an ethical (i.e., metaethical) theory. Hare uses “emotivism” as a catch-all term for nondescriptivist ethical theories, such as his own universal prescriptivism. He says the divi-sion between descriptivists and nondescriptivists is “the most fun-damental in ethics.” The relation between descriptive and prescrip-tive meaning “continues to tax ethical thinkers.”
1962
Review of Generalization in Ethics: An Essay in the Logic of Ethics, with the Rudiments of a System of Moral Philosophy, by Marcus George Singer. The Philosophical Quarterly 12 (October 1962): 351-5. The book is “a full and closely reasoned treatment of the most central feature of moral arguments.” “[N]othing but profit can come from the serious study of it.” Singer’s focus is the following type of argument: “If everyone were to do x, the consequences would be disastrous (or undesirable); therefore no one ought to do x.” Hare criticizes Singer’s inattention to “the distinction between singular and universal terms.” Hare is also critical of Singer’s disregard for the prescriptivity of moral judgments. Perhaps Singer considers pre-scriptivism (Hare’s theory) a form of relativism. This is unfortunate, because “generalization arguments cannot be successfully mounted unless moral judgments are recognized to be prescriptive.” Singer asks what would happen if everyone did x. Hare thinks this puts too much emphasis on quantity. According to Hare, “If an action is wrong, it is wrong because it would be wrong for anyone (N.B. not ‘everyone’) to do it in just these circumstances, whether or not any-one else did it in the same or in different circumstances.” In other words, generalization differs from universalization. The generalist asks, “What if everyone did what I’m about to do?” The universalist asks, “Can I will that anyone in my situation do x?”
11
1963
Freedom and Reason. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963. See here for a summary.
“Descriptivism.” Proceedings of the British Academy 49 (1963): xx-xx. Reprinted as chap. 5 of EMC. Hare views descriptivism—the term was suggested to him by J. L. Austin—as a mistake. Some descriptivists “impugn [the] distinction” between description and evaluation, so Hare seeks to “establish[] its existence” (55). The dis-tinction concerns not terms, but different meanings of a given term. That evaluative meaning exists can be established by finding two terms that have the same descriptive meaning but different evalua-tive meanings. When you subtract “x is a wine which tastes Ø” from “x is a good wine,” there is something left over, namely, an evalua-tion. Hare follows Charles Stevenson (whom he doesn’t mention) in saying that two people can “agree about the description but disagree about the evaluation” (62). Hare devotes the remainder of the essay to refuting various descriptivist arguments—or rather, to showing that descriptivist arguments are not successful against him.
Letter in Times Literary Supplement on review of Freedom and Reason (26 April 1963). I have been unable to locate this item.
1964
“Pain and Evil.” The Aristotelian Society, supplementary vol-ume 38 (1964): 91-106. Reprinted as chap. 6 of EMC. Hare ad-mits to grinding an ax in this essay, the aim of which is to show that there is a “distinction between descriptive and evaluative judge-ments” (89). Some people have said that the distinction “breaks down” in the case of pain, for “I am in intense pain,” they say, is both descriptive and evaluative. Hare argues that it’s logically possible for someone to be in pain (in the sense of having a distinct sensation) but not to suffer (or to dislike it). That pain and suffering often or even always coincide doesn’t prove that they must (logically) coincide. The essay is an analysis of the concept of pain.
“Adolescents into Adults.” In Aims in Education, edited by T. C. 12
B. Hollins, xx-xx. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1964. Reprinted as chap. 5 of AMP and as chap. 7 of ERE. Hare argues that the distinction between education (a good thing) and in-doctrination (a bad thing) is one of aim (i.e., purpose) rather than content or method. The aim of education is to get the pupil to think for him- or herself. The aim of indoctrination is to get the pupil to accept what is taught. Early on, nonrational methods (environment and example) will have to be used, since the child cannot yet think for him- or herself; but the aim is to induce critical thinking as soon as possible. As for which method of critical thinking to inculcate, why, it’s universal prescriptivism, for this, Hare says, captures the logic of moral judgment. In short, “the educator is trying to turn children into adults; the indoctrinator is trying to make them into perpetual children” (65-6).
“A Question About Plato’s Theory of Ideas.” In The Critical Ap-proach: Essays in Honor of Karl Popper, edited by Mario Bunge, xx-xx. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1964. Reprinted, with “minor corrections,” as chap. 4 of EPMe. Hare asks—and answers—the following “question of psychological fact”: “What, in certain circum-stances and on certain occasions . . . , was actually going on in Plato’s experience? The circumstances and occasions in question are, roughly, those in which Plato himself would have said ‘I am see-ing (or apprehending) an Idea’” (55). Hare’s hypothesis, which he tests against Plato’s corpus, is that Plato was “forming a mental im-age” (62).
“The Promising Game.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 70 (1964): 398-412. Reprinted as chap. 9 of EET. Hare criticizes John Searle’s attempt to derive a moral conclusion from a set of non-moral premises. Uttering the words “I promise” generates an obliga-tion only if there is an institution of promising, the constitutive rules of which are moral principles. Hare is vindicating Hume’s Law.
“Wat Is Leven?” Elseviers Weekblad (19 December 1964): xx-xx. Reprinted (in English, as “What Is Life?”) as chap. 6 of AMP. Concepts such as life, human, and murder are useful in standard cases but not in nonstandard cases, for they were not developed to handle nonstandard cases. Are those whose hearts have stopped
13
beating dead for a while, and then alive again when they are resusci-tated? Are extremely deformed children human? Is it murder to kill one’s enemies in battle? No definition or simple rule (e.g., “Thou shalt not kill”) can answer these questions. “If you wish to under-stand how to decide what it is right to do in the queer cases, you will have to think hard about why it is right to do what most of us do in the ordinary cases” (70). Hare seems to be saying that there are no shortcuts in moral reasoning.
“The Objectivity of Values.” Common Factor 1 (1964) 3-5. Hare argues that “the distinction between ‘subjectivism’ and ‘objectivism’ is no longer a useful one in moral philosophy” (3). The distinction made sense “before about 1935” (5), when everyone thought sentences had only one function, viz., to state facts. Subjectivists claimed that the facts were about subjects (speakers); objectivists claimed that the facts were about objects (something other than speakers). Once it was understood that sentences have other functions besides that of stating facts, the distinction lost its usefulness. The main divide is now between descriptivists and nondescriptivists. Subjectivism and objectivism are types of descriptivism (the doctrine that “the role of moral judgments is exclusively factual” [5]). Calling nondescriptivists such as Hare “subjectivists” only confuses things. Hare recommends that the terms “subjectivism” and “objectivism” be used only in con-nection with the earlier debate.
1965
Review of Norm and Action: A Logical Enquiry, by Georg Henrik von Wright. The Philosophical Quarterly 15 (April 1965): 172-5. Hare says that von Wright’s book is “important” and “yields . . . much illumination,” but criticizes it for focusing on “norm-kernels.” Norm-kernels consist of the three central ingredients of norms: their char-acter (obligation or permission), their content (that which ought to be done), and their condition of application. Hare says that this class of norms is “at once too narrow in some ways and too heterogeneous in others” (174). It is too narrow because it omits norms the violation of which aren’t sanctioned by an authority. It is too heterogeneous be-cause it includes imperatives, “ought” sentences, commands, obliga-tion-norms, and permissions. “In short, my complaint is that he [von
14
Wright] excludes from his logic of norms expressions which do not differ in their logic from those which he includes, while he includes some which do differ radically” (174; italics in original). Hare is wor-ried that unsophisticated readers of von Wright’s book will not notice the “crucial distinction between ‘ought’ and imperatives” (175), which “may lead to a good deal of confusion in ethics” (175). Hare yearns for a “logic of normative discourse” (175).
“Plato and the Mathematicians.” In New Essays on Plato and Aristotle, edited by Renford Bambrough, xx-xx. London: Rout-ledge and Kegan Paul, 1965. Reprinted as chap. 5 of EPMe. Hare tries to make sense of Plato’s “indictment of the mathemati-cians” (80). The first mistake mathematicians make, according to Plato (as interpreted by Hare), is not defining their terms prior to con-structing proofs. (Hare notes that Frege also railed against this—and I might add that Hobbes did as well.) This mistake can be remedied by dialectic, which serves “to establish definitions” (91). The second mistake is using diagrams (such as the one drawn in the sand in Meno) as the basis for inference. Hare concludes with some reflec-tions on Plato’s Idea of the Good. Plato (he says) did not clearly dis-tinguish between the meaning of “good” and the criteria for its appli-cation.
1967
“The Lawful Government.” In Philosophy, Politics and Society, 3d series, edited by Peter Laslett and W. G. Runciman, xx-xx. Oxford: Blackwell, 1967. Reprinted as chap. 8 of AMP. Hare poses the following question: “How does a de facto government turn into a de jure government?” (90). Hare criticizes attempts to answer this question by “looking for a criterion of lawfulness in governments” (91)—for example, “a government is lawful if it enjoys the support of the people of a territory” (94). All such attempts are forms of descrip-tivism, Hare says. Some descriptivist theories of lawfulness are em-pirical and some non-empirical. Hare rejects descriptivism. He says that when we say that a government is lawful, we are judging, not describing. The word “lawful” is being used ascriptively, not descrip-tively. To ascribe lawfulness to a government is to perform “an act of allegiance” (101), not “to state any facts about it” (107). What is an act of allegiance? “In giving my allegiance to a certain government, I am committing myself to treat its regulations as laws binding upon myself; that is to say, I am submitting or subjecting myself to it” (103). In settled times, people don’t go around performing acts of al-legiance. Their allegiance is taken for granted. In unsettled (e.g., revolutionary) times, people can either perform acts of allegiance or forswear allegiance.
“Conventional Morality,” “Decision,” “Deliberation,” “Ethics,” “Intention,” “Right and Wrong.” In Dictionary of Christian Eth-ics, edited by John Macquarrie, 74, 85, 86, 114-6, 170-1, 299. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1967. Hare defines six ethi-cal terms, noting both their general and (where appropriate) their specifically Christian meanings.
Review of Freedom of the Individual, by Stuart Hampshire. The Philosophical Review 76 (April 1967): 230-3. Hare begins with the observation that “The borderland between ethics and the philosophy of mind has become one of the great growth points of modern phi-losophy” (230). Unfortunately, many of “the growths are malignant” (230). Hare criticizes Hampshire for lack of “lucidity.” He says that he (Hare) is not always sure what Hampshire is arguing. Hare criti-cizes Hampshire’s analysis of “can”; he says that Hampshire fails to sort out desires; and he challenges Hampshire’s claim that there can be knowledge without observation. Hare concludes this rather grumpy review by saying that “It is . . . more likely that ethics will il-luminate the philosophy of mind than vice versa” (233).
***********************************************
“Some Alleged Differences Between Imperatives and Indicatives.” Mind, n.s., 76 (July 1967): 309-26. Reprinted as chap. 2 of PI.
"Hare argues that “several of the reasons which various writers have given for alleging differences between imperative and ordinary logic are based on misunderstandings” (25)."
"He discusses two such reasons."
"The first is this.
“Post the letter; ergo, post the letter or burn it” does not seem valid (indeed, it “strikes us as paradoxical” [30]), but the corresponding indicative inference is valid (by addition):
“You are going to post the letter; ergo, either you are going to post the letter or you are going to burn it.”
Hare says (on my interpretation and in my words) that just as the second inference preserves truth, the first inference preserves compliance."
"If I comply with
Post the letter!
then I have, eo ipso, complied with
Post the letter or burn it!
(but not conversely).
The inferences are parallel; the paradox disap-pears.
"Hare makes use of Paul Grice’s concept of conversational im-plicature, but it seems to me to be unnecessary to his argument.)"
---- the cheek! But I love Jackson.
----
"The second reason conflates “ordinary imperatives” such as “Shut the door” with “deontic or normative sentences” such as “You ought to shut the door” (34). Hare says that the logic of these is different. “It is possible for it to be neither the case that Smith ought to do a, nor the case that Smith ought not to do a; the proposition that Smith ei-ther ought to do a or ought not to do a is not a logical truth” (35). By contrast, “Do a” and “Do not do a” “seem to have as much right to be called contradictories as the corresponding indicative pair ‘You are going to do a’ and ‘You are not going to do a’” (40). So imperatives (Do a) are like indicatives (You are going to do a) but unlike norma-tive sentences (You ought to do a). It was only the assimilation of imperatives to normative sentences that made it appear otherwise.
1968
Review of Contemporary Moral Philosophy, by G. J. Warnock. Mind, n.s., 77 (July 1968): 436-40. Hare praises the clarity of Warnock’s writing and says that he (Hare) will focus on the differ-ences between the two men. The main difference is that Warnock, a descriptivist, defines morality “in terms of its content” (436), while Hare, a prescriptivist, defines it in terms of its form. The word “ought” has two formal properties: prescriptivity and universalizabil-ity. Hare criticizes Warnock for ignoring the first property. Given that there are “negligibly few” fanatics, people are not prepared to make moral judgments unless they are willing to accept the judgment no matter which position they occupy. Hare says that prescriptivism can “claim to have exposed the nerve of some real and important moral arguments” (440), which counts in its favor as against descrip-tivism. Hare agrees with Warnock’s criticisms of “the intuitionists and emotivists” (440). Hare ends by praising Warnock’s “strenuous efforts to be fair to his opponents,” but adds, somewhat sinisterly, that Warnock “has not entirely succeeded” (440).
Review of The Concept of Education, ed. R. S. Peters. Mind, 17
n.s., 77 (July 1968): 450. Hare notes that philosophy of education “is becoming a popular subject.” If philosophers do their job, which is to illuminate problems by clarifying concepts, they can have an impact on education itself, like John Dewey did. Hare says that the essays in the book are “of exceedingly uneven quality,” with those by Gilbert Ryle and John Passmore the best. Some are “elegant noth-ings.” Michael Oakeshott, for example, “says very little very beauti-fully about learning and teaching.” Ouch.
Review of Law, Morality and Religion in a Secular Society, by Basil Mitchell. Philosophy 43 (October 1968): 379-81. Hare says that this book “contains much more wisdom than can be even briefly indicated in a review, on a wide variety of connected topics, including the bearing of religion on law and morality” (381). Hare devotes most of his review to Mitchell’s “examination of the questions raised by the Hart-Devlin controversy” (379). He says that Mitchell’s position on one important point is “somewhat unclear,” namely, whether it is permissible for law to prohibit and punish harmless immoralities. Mitchell clearly rejects Devlin’s answer (yes), but he doesn’t describe a case on which he and Hart differ. It thus appears that he sides with Hart as against Devlin, in which case one wonders why he dis-cusses the debate.
1969
“Practical Inferences.” In Festskrift til Alf Ross, xx-xx. Edited by V. Kruse. Copenhagen: Juristvorbundets Vorlag, 1969. Re-printed as chap. 4 of PI. Hare begins with two distinctions: (1) be-tween logical and causal conditions “for being said to have done the thing in question” (59); and (2) between necessary and sufficient con-ditions (either logical or causal) for “performing an action” (59). Hare believes that the second distinction sheds light on “the logic of im-peratives” (60). He shows that some of Aristotle’s examples of practi-cal reasoning involve necessary conditions (e.g., All men are to march; I am a man; therefore, (He at once marches)), while others in-volve sufficient conditions (e.g., A good thing is to be made by me; A house is a good thing; therefore, (He at once makes a house)). Aris-totle appears not to have noticed the difference; or, if he did, he did not comment on it. Hare shows that Alf Ross’s “logic of satisfaction”
18
is “isomorphic with standard assertoric logic” (63). The only differ-ence is that Ross’s logic preserves satisfaction rather than truth. Hare shows that Kenny’s “logic of satisfactoriness” is nothing more than reasoning to sufficient conditions, as opposed to reasoning to necessary conditions. Hare concludes by drawing a parallel between imperative and assertoric logic: “Imperative logic is about what can be commanded by a consistent commander, just as assertoric logic is about what can be stated by a maker of consistent statements” (73). So there is such a thing as practical inference, and its logic is that of assertoric (propositional) logic. There is nothing peculiar, in other words, about practical inference.
Review of Directives and Norms, by Alf Ross. Mind, n.s., 78 (July 1969): 464-6. Hare describes this book as “interesting and important” (464). He says that he found it “often stimulating, some-times infuriating, and always worth reading” (464). One of the main disagreements he has with Ross concerns “ought”-sentences and im-peratives. Ross assimilates them, calling both of them “directives,” whereas Hare has argued that only “ought”-sentences are universal-izable. The sentence “You ought to shut the door” entails “Anyone in precisely your situation ought to shut the door.” “Shut the door” (an imperative) “does not have this entailment” (465). Hare believes that indicatives and imperatives share a logic; Ross believes that they have different logics. The “most serious disagreement” Hare has with Ross concerns Ross’s claim that what distinguishes indicative and imperative speech acts is that only imperative speech acts have per-locutionary force. Hare claims that perlocutionary force cannot dif-ferentiate speech acts since it has nothing to do with “rules or con-ventions” (466).
“Community and Communication: What Are Cities and What Are They For?” In People and Cities, edited by S. E. Verney, xx-xx. London: Fontana Books, 1969. Reprinted as chap. 9 of AMP. This essay was written as an introduction to a conference on people and cities. Hare claims that cities are not machines but rather “or-ganism[s] for communication” (110). They are not designed; they grow. Town planners are like doctors or gardeners, not engineers. Commerce, government, and art require communication, which cities facilitate. Cities could specialize in a particular type of communica-
19
tion, but that promotes isolation, which is inimical to cooperation. Governors, for example, must interact with citizens in order to repre-sent them; otherwise, there will be resentment and perhaps violence. “If Washington were an all-white city, the United States would be worse governed” (114). The key to successful communication is un-derstanding, and the key to that is education, which always involves understanding a language. “The discipline which has as its task the furthering of this understanding is called philosophy” (114). This es-say reads like a series of sound bites. In the postscript, which was added after the conference, Hare equates peace, morality, and love. “[I]n truth morality is love” (115; italics in original). He mentions Bentham (everybody to count for one, nobody to count for more than one), Kant (willing one’s maxims to be universal laws), the Bible (lov-ing one’s neighbor as oneself), and the Golden Rule (doing unto oth-ers as you would have them do unto you), as though they were merely different ways of expressing the same value or principle. Per-haps they are, but this needs to be shown, not merely asserted.
1970
“Meaning and Speech Acts.” The Philosophical Review 79 (January 1970): 3-24. Reprinted, with appendix, as chap. 5 of PI. Hare’s aim in this essay is to contribute to an understanding of “meaning theory,” which, he says, is divided into two camps: “those who want to explain the meanings of certain words in terms of the speech acts which those words (or sentences containing them) are standardly used to perform, and those who say that this is a mis-take” (76). Hare calls these individuals “performers” and “critics,” re-spectively. He is a performer. John Searle is sometimes a performer and sometimes (in the case of “good”) a critic. Hare replies to the “strongest” argument of the critics, which is that the words in ques-tion appear in negative sentences (“That is not a good movie”), inter-rogative sentences (“Is that a good movie?”), and hypotheti-cal/conditional sentences (“If it is a good movie, then it will make a lot of money”). Since no speech act (e.g., commendation) is being performed in these cases, as in affirmative, categorical, indicative sentences (“That was a good movie”), the analysis of meaning in terms of speech acts cannot be correct. Hare’s argument, in a nut-shell, is that we explain the meaning of “That is a good movie” in 20
terms of “the speech act of commending the movie” (85). To ask “Is that a good movie?” is to invite one’s interlocutor to say either “That was a good movie” (commendation) or “That was not a good movie” (the negation of a commendation). Similar remarks apply, mutatis mutandis, to negative and to hypothetical/conditional sentences. In the appendix to this essay, Hare replies to a published criticism by G. J. Warnock.
“Condizioni intellettuali per la sopravvivenza dell’uomo.” Pro-teus 1 (1970). I have been unable to locate this item.
“Reply to ‘Liberals, Fanatics and Not-so-innocent-Bystanders.’” Chap. 3 in Jowett Papers: 1968-1969, edited by B. Y. Khanbhai, R. S. Katz, and R. A. Pineau, 44-52. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970. Hare replies to an essay by R. S. Katz, who was, at the time of publication, a Rhodes Scholar at Balliol College, Oxford. Hare begins by clarifying certain points on which (he claims) Katz misunderstood him. The task of moral philosophy, according to Hare, “is to help us to understand the moral questions that we are troubled about, and by so doing to help us answer them, either by ourselves or in discus-sion with those with whom we are in dispute” (46). Katz (according to Hare) wants philosophy “to put into the hands of the radical a propa-ganda weapon which will turn all the intellectual bullets of the fas-cists into water” (46). Hare denies that this is the task of philosophy; but that doesn’t mean that philosophy is irrelevant, pointless, or un-practical. Hare concludes by “show[ing] theoretically that fanatics must be extremely rare or non-existent” (50). He says that he was unable to do this in his “last book,” which presumably refers to Free-dom and Reason (1963).
“General Introduction.” In The Dialogues of Plato, translated by Benjamin Jowett and edited by R. M. Hare and D. A. Russell, 11-30. 4 vols. London: Sphere Books Limited, 1970. x
1971
“Was Hiroshima Necessary?” Review of The Prisoner and the Bomb, by Laurens van der Post. The New York Review of Books 16 (20 May 1971): xx-xx. Hare, who was a prisoner of the Japanese
21
during World War II, but who hadn’t written anything about his ex-periences by the time this review was composed, says that he “ought not to be critical of those [such as van der Post] who have.” Hare dis-cusses van der Post’s claim that, “if the bombs had not been dropped, most of us prisoners would have perished.” Hare says that van der Post “offers very little hard evidence for this claim,” and that he (Hare) is “not competent to assess [its] truth.” Hare goes on to criticize those (G. E. M. Anscombe?) who hold that no amount of good consequences could have justified the killing of innocents in the Hi-roshima and Nagasaki bombings. Statesmen are as responsible for harm they allow as for harm they cause. This is not to excuse Presi-dent Truman. “If he is to be condemned, it will have to be because he did not do the best he could in the circumstances and did not take sufficient trouble to inform himself about the circumstances in order to determine what was the best thing to do” (italics in original).
“Wanting: Some Pitfalls.” In Agent, Action and Reason, 81-127. Edited by R. Binkley, R. Bronaugh, and _____ Marras. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971. Reprinted as chap. 3 of PI. Hare marks four “pitfalls” involved in explicating the concept of want-ing. First, “I want to do A” can be either a statement about a desire (which, qua statement, is either true or false) or an expression of de-sire (which, qua expression, is neither true nor false). (Compare “I am angry.”) One must not use both meanings of “want” in a single argument. Second, the term “command” suffers from ge-neric/specific ambiguity. Sometimes it is used generically, to refer to orders, requests, prayers, and other directives. Sometimes it is used specifically, to contrast with orders, requests, prayers, and other di-rectives. A commands is a species of commandg. Third, commands, like orders, but unlike exhortations, are not perlocutionary acts; they are illocutionary acts. So intending can be self-commanding even if it is not self-exhorting. Fourth, if liberties are allowed to be taken in speaking of mental indicative speech-acts, then they should be al-lowed to be taken in speaking of mental imperative speech-acts. No double standard!
Practical Inferences. New Studies in Practical Philosophy, ed. W. D. Hudson. London: Macmillan, 1971; Berkeley and Los An-geles: University of California Press, 1972. The chapters of this 22
book are annotated separately.
“Austin’s Distinction Between Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts [with Appendix].” Chap. 6 of PI. Hare says that Austin’s dis-tinction between performatives and constatives evolved into the “threefold distinction between locutionary, illocutionary and perlocu-tionary acts” (100). Some of the problems of the former crept into the latter. Austin failed clearly to distinguish between (a) “different things that we can be doing in saying something” and (b) “two differ-ent ways of doing the same thing” (102; italics in original). For each illocutionary act (e.g., promising, ordering), there are primary and ex-plicit performatives. The primary way of promising (for example) is to say “I shall be there.” The explicit way of promising is to say “I prom-ise that I shall be there.” Hare says that Austin didn’t notice that there are two distinctions rather than one. Hare goes on to argue that all locutionary acts are also, already, illocutionary acts. Thus, “the distinction between locutionary and illocutionary breaks down” (113). In the appendix, Hare scours Austin’s How to Do Things with Words for uses of the word “meaning.” Austin, he says, had a “dis-taste” (115) for the word (and its cognates).
Essays on Philosophical Method. New Studies in Practical Phi-losophy, ed. W. D. Hudson. London: Macmillan, 1971; Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1972. The chap-ters of this book are annotated separately.
“The Practical Relevance of Philosophy.” Chap. 6 of EPMe. This is Hare’s Inaugural Lecture (1967) as White’s Professor of Moral Phi-losophy in the University of Oxford. He succeeded William Kneale (1905-1990), who in turn succeeded J. L. Austin (1911-1960). The following five propositions are inconsistent: (1) If (a) “philosophy is concerned centrally and essentially with the elucidation of concepts,” (b) “no substantial or synthetic conclusion of any kind can follow” from elucidation of concepts, and (c) “the elucidation will never give us a means of deducing moral judgements from statements of fact,” then philosophy has no practical relevance; (2) a; (3) b; (4) c; (5) phi-losophy has practical relevance. Some philosophers reject 2; some reject 3; some (descriptivists) reject 4; some reject 5. Hare accepts propositions 2 through 5, but rejects 1. His rejection of 1 comes 23
down to showing that moral reasoning is prescriptive rather than de-scriptive in nature. Philosophy has practical relevance because it elucidates the nature of morality, which is not conformity to pre-existing rules but “the endeavour of a free agent to find for himself principles which he can accept as binding on all alike” (114). Hare believes that if his proposed method of moral reasoning (universal prescriptivism) were widely adopted, it would generate agreement on many or most moral problems, thus solving them.
“The Argument from Received Opinion.” Chap. 7 of EPMe. Hare’s aim is to “clarify . . . the logic of a form of argument that has been exceedingly common in moral philosophy” (117). The argu-ment, roughly stated, is as follows: Theory T commits its adherents to views “which are very much at variance with those of most people” (118); therefore, T is unacceptable. Hare says that it is “unclear why the argument should be thought to have any force” (118). Some re-ceived opinions ought to be accepted and some ought to be rejected. Unless we can distinguish between them, we ought to “reject received opinion altogether as an authority” (118). Hare argues that “Com-mon moral opinions have in themselves no probative force whatever in moral philosophy” (122). This is not to say that common uses of the moral words are irrelevant, for how words are used determines which theories of the meaning of moral words are correct. Two people can agree in their use of moral words, but disagree in their moral opinions. Prescriptivism makes this possible; descriptivism pre-cludes it. Hare takes this as support for prescriptivism. Sometimes (as in the case of car pushing—Hare’s example) Hare’s method of moral reasoning will support common opinion; sometimes it will clash with common opinion. “[T]he examination has to be done afresh in each case” (135). “[T]he first step to unravelling moral problems is to understand the language in which they are posed” (135).
“Drugs and the Role of the Doctor.” Chap. 11 in Personality and Science: An Interdisciplinary Discussion, edited by I. T. Ramsey and Ruth Porter, 85-92. Edinburgh and London: Churchill Liv-ingstone, 1971. x
(With B. G. Mitchell.) “Some Philosophical Comments.” Chap. 12 in Personality and Science: An Interdisciplinary Discussion,
24
edited by I. T. Ramsey and Ruth Porter, 93-101. Edinburgh and London: Churchill Livingstone, 1971. x
1972
“Principles.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, n.s., 73 (1972-73): 1-18. Reprinted as chap. 4 of EET. x
Essays on the Moral Concepts. New Studies in Practical Philoso-phy, ed. W. D. Hudson. London: Macmillan, 1972; Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1973. The chapters of this book are annotated separately.
“Wrongness and Harm.” Chap. 7 of EMC. x
“Rules of War and Moral Reasoning.” Philosophy & Public Af-fairs 1 (winter 1972): 166-81. Reprinted as chap. 5 of EPMo. x
Applications of Moral Philosophy. New Studies in Practical Phi-losophy, ed. W. D. Hudson. London: Macmillan, 1972; Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1973. The chap-ters of this book are annotated separately.
“Reasons of State.” Chap. 2 of AMP. Hare asks: “Is it possible to make moral judgements about political actions at all?” Many people say no, but Hare says yes. What determines the morality of an act is “its effects on other people,” and political actions have this character-istic. Indeed, political actions have “widespread effects.” Moral deci-sions made by political actors are more complicated and difficult be-cause of this, but in principle they can be made. Some people say that consequences are morally irrelevant, but Hare says it is impos-sible to distinguish between “an act and its consequences in such a way that the consequences become morally irrelevant” (15). One’s acts are what one causes to happen. Which consequences are mor-ally relevant depends on one’s moral principles, which can be compli-cated and inarticulate. Great statesmen seem to act intuitively (i.e., without principles), but they, too, act on principles, which are learned through experience and by the study of history.
25
“Function and Tradition in Architecture.” Chap. 3 of AMP. x
“Peace.” Chap. 7 of AMP. x
Review of The Object of Morality, by G. J. Warnock. Ratio 14 (1972). x
“Wissenschaft und praktische Philosophie.” In Proceedings of 9 Deutscher Kongress für Philosophie und Wissenschaft, xx-xx. Edited by A. Diemer. Meisenheim: Hain, 1972. x
1973
“Critical Study: ‘Rawls’ Theory of Justice—I and II’.” The Philo-sophical Quarterly 23 (April 1973): 144-55; (July 1973): 241-52. Re-printed as “Rawls’s Theory of Justice” in Reading Rawls, xx-xx. Ed-ited by Norman Daniels. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. Re-printed in EET.
“The Simple Believer.” In Religion and Morality, 393-427. Edited by Gene Outka and John P. Reeder, Jr. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1973. Reprinted in Philosophy and the Human Condition, 534-40. Edited by Tom L. Beauchamp, William T. Black-stone, and Joel Feinberg. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980. Reprinted in ERE.
“Language and Moral Education.” In New Essays in the Philosophy of Education, xx-xx. Edited by G. Langford and D. J. O’Connor. Lon-don: Routledge, 1973. Reprinted in Contemporary Aspects of Phi-losophy, 149-66. Edited by Gilbert Ryle. London: Oriel Press, 1976. Reprinted (with comments and reply) in The Domain of Moral Educa-tion, xx-xx. Edited by D. B. Cochrane, C. M. Hamm, and A. C. Ka-zepides. Toronto: Paulist Press, 1979. Reprinted, with “Appendix: Rejoinder to G. J. Warnock”, in ERE.
“Sad Moralny” (“Moral Judgement”). Etyka 11 (1973): 29-43. (In Pol-ish, with English summary.)
1974
26
Comment on “Reason and Violence”, by R. Edgley. In Practical Rea-son, xx-xx. Edited by Stephan Körner. Oxford: Blackwell, 1974.
“The Abnormal Child: Moral Dilemmas of Doctors and Parents.” Documentation in Medical Ethics 3 (1974): 365-9. Reprinted as “Sur-vival of the Weakest” in Moral Problems in Medicine, edited by Samuel Gorovitz, 000-000. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1976. Re-printed in EB. Reprinted as chap. 29 in Bioethics: An Anthology, ed-ited by Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer, 269-72. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999. (Address, London Medical Group, 1973.)
“Platonism in Moral Education: Two Varieties.” The Monist 58 (Octo-ber 1974): 568-80. Reprinted in ERE.
“What Use Is Moral Philosophy?” In Philosophy in the Open, xx-xx. Edited by xxx. Milton Keynes: Open University, 1974.
1975
“Contrasting Methods of Environmental Planning.” In Nature and Conduct, xx-xx. Edited by R. S. Peters. London: Macmillan, 1975. Reprinted in Ethics and Problems of the 21st Century, 63-78. Edited by Kenneth E. Goodpaster and K. Sayre. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979. Reprinted in EPMo.
“Autonomy as an Educational Ideal.” In Philosophers Discuss Edu-cation, xx-xx. Edited by S. C. Brown. London: Macmillan, 1975. Reprinted in ERE.
“Abortion and the Golden Rule.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 4 (spring 1975): 201-22. Reprinted in Philosophy and Sex, xx-xx. Edited by Robert Baker and Frederick Elliston. Buffalo: Prometheus, 1975. Reprinted in Moral Problems, xx-xx. Edited by James Rachels. New York: Harper and Row, 1978. Reprinted in Ethical Theory and Soci-ety, xx-xx. Edited by D. Goldberg. New York: Holt Rinehart, 1987. Reprinted in EB.
“Euthanasia: A Christian View.” Philosophic Exchange 2 (summer
27
1975): 43-52. Reprinted in ERE.
1976
“Ethical Theory and Utilitarianism.” In Contemporary British Philosophy 4, edited by H. D. Lewis, 113-31. London: Allen and Unwin, 1976. Reprinted as chap. 13 of EET. x
“Some Confusions About Subjectivity.” In Freedom and Moral-ity, edited by John Bricke, 191-208. Lawrence: University of Kansas, 1976. Reprinted as chap. 2 of EET. x
“Political Obligation.” In Social Ends and Political Means, xx-xx. Ed-ited by Ted Honderich. London: Routledge, 1976. Reprinted in EPMo.
“Value Education in a Pluralist Society: A Philosophical Glance at the Humanities Curriculum Project.” In Proceedings of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain 10, xx-xx. Edited by R. S. Peters. 1976. Reprinted in Growing Up with Philosophy, xx-xx. Edited by M. Lipman. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1978. Reprinted in ERE.
Review of The Structure of Morality, by Hector-Neri Castañeda. The Journal of Philosophy 73 (12 August 1976): 481-5.
1977
“Medical Ethics: Can the Moral Philosopher Help?” In Philosophical Medical Ethics: Its Nature and Significance, 49-61. Edited by S. Spicker and H. T. Engelhardt, Jr. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Pub-lishing Company, 1977. Reprinted in EB.
“Geach on Murder and Sodomy.” Philosophy 52 (October 1977): 467-72.
“Opportunity for What? Some Remarks on Current Disputes About Equality in Education.” Oxford Review of Education 3 (1977). Re-printed in ERE.
28
“Sprawiedliwosc i równosc.” Etyka 15 (1977): 143-61. Re-printed (in English, as “Justice and Equality”) in Justice and Economic Distribution, edited by John Arthur and William H. Shaw, 116-31. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978. Dis-cussion, in English, in Dialectics and Humanism 6 (fall 1979): 17-26. Reprinted (without discussion) as chap. 14 of EPMo. x
1978
“Prediction and Moral Appraisal.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 3 (1978): 17-27. Reprinted in EB.
“Relevance.” In Values and Morals: Essays in Honor of William Frankena, Charles Stevenson, and Richard Brandt, 73-90. Edited by Alvin I. Goldman and Jaegwon Kim. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1978. Reprinted in EET.
“Moral Philosophy.” In Men of Ideas, xx-xx. Edited by Brian Magee. London: BBC Publications, 1978.
1979
“What Makes Choices Rational?” Review of Metaphysics 32 (June 1979): 623-37. Reprinted (in German, as “Was Macht Eine Wahl Ra-tional?”) in Conceptus 15 (1981): 12-25. Reprinted in EET.
“What Is Wrong with Slavery.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 8 (winter 1979): 103-21. Reprinted in Morality and Moral Controversies, xx-xx. Edited by John Arthur. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979. Reprinted in Applied Ethics, 165-83. Edited by Peter Singer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. Reprinted in EPMo. Reprinted in Moral Philosophy: Selected Readings, 2d ed., 313-26. Edited by George Sher. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1996. Reprinted in Slavery and Social Philosophy, xx-xx. Edited by Tommy Lott. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998? (Address, Wesleyan University, 1978.)
“Non-Descriptivist Ethics” and “Utilitarianism”. In Encyclopedia of 29
Bioethics, xx-xx and xx-xx. Edited by W. Reich. New York: Free Press, 1979.
“Universal and Past-Tense Prescriptions: A Reply to Mr Ibberson.” Analysis 39 (October 1979): 161-5.
“On Terrorism.” Journal of Value Inquiry 13 (winter 1979): 241-9. Reprinted in EPMo.
“Utilitarianism and the Vicarious Affects.” In The Philosophy of Nicho-las Rescher, 141-52. Edited by Ernest Sosa. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1979. Reprinted in EET.
“Behaviour Therapy and Moral Responsibility.” Midwife, Health Visi-tor and Community Nurse. London: 1979.
1980
“Moral Conflicts.” In The Tanner Lectures on Human Values I, xx-xx. Edited by Sterling McMurrin. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1980; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Re-printed, revised, in Moral Thinking.
Review of Mortal Questions, by Thomas Nagel. Philosophical Books 21 (1980).
1981
Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 1981. See here for a summary.
Review of The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology, by Peter Singer. The New Republic (7 February 1981): xx-xx.
“On a Misunderstanding of Geach’s.” Analysis 41 (January 1981): 64.
“On the Possibility of the Rational Foundation of Norms.” In Wissen-schaftliche und Auberwissenschaftliche Rationalität [Scientific and Ex-
30
tra-Scientific Rationality], xx-xx. Edited by A. S. Skiadas. Athens, Greece: 1981.
1982
Plato. Past Masters, ed. Keith Thomas. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. Reprinted in Founders of Thought: Plato, Aristotle, Au-gustine, xx-xx. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
“Utilitarianism and Double Standards: A Reply to Dr Annas.” Oxford Review of Education 8 (1982).
“Moral Philosophy: Some Waymarks.” In New Trends in Philosophy, xx-xx. Edited by A. Kasher and S. Lappin. Tel Aviv: Yachdav, 1982. (In Hebrew.)
Interview with Carl Rudbeck. Svenska Dagbladet (February 1982). (In Swedish.)
1983
“Philosophical Introduction.” In Psychiatric Ethics, xx-xx. Edited by S. Bloch and P. Chodoff. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Re-printed as “The Philosophical Basis of Psychiatric Ethics” in EB.
“On the Scientific Justification of Norms.” In 16 Weltkongress für Phi-losophie 1978, xx-xx. Edited by A. Diemer. Frankfurt a. M: Peter Lang, 1983.
1984
“Do Agents Have to Be Moralists?” In Gewirth’s Ethical Rationalism, 52-8. Edited by Edward Regis Jr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
“Supervenience.” The Aristotelian Society, supplementary volume 56 (1984): 1-16. Reprinted in EET.
“Utility and Rights: Comment on David Lyons’s Paper.” In Nomos 24:
31
Ethics, Economics and the Law, xx-xx. Edited by xxx. 1984. Re-printed in EPMo.
“Arguing About Rights.” Emory Law Journal 33 (1984). Reprinted (with fewer references) in EPMo.
“Liberty and Equality: How Politics Masquerades as Philosophy.” So-cial Philosophy & Policy 2 (autumn 1984): 1-11. Reprinted in EPMo.
“Some Reasoning About Preferences: A Response to Essays by Pers-son, Feldman, and Schueler.” Ethics 95 (October 1984): 81-5. Re-printed in EET.
“Rights, Utility, and Universalization: Reply to J. L. Mackie.” In Utility and Rights, 106-20. Edited by R. G. Frey. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984. Reprinted in EPMo.
1985
“Ontology in Ethics.” In Morality and Objectivity: A Tribute to J. L. Mackie, 39-53. Edited by Ted Honderich. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985. Reprinted in EET.
“Philosophy and Practice: Some Issues About War and Peace.” In Philosophy and Practice, 1-16. Edited by A. Phillips Griffiths. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Also in Philosophy, Sup-plementary Volume 18 (1985): 1-16. Reprinted in EPMo.
“Little Human Guinea-Pigs?” In Moral Dilemmas in Modern Medicine, xx-xx. Edited by Michael Lockwood. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Reprinted in EB.
“The Ethics of Experimentation on Human Children.” In Logic, Meth-odology and Philosophy of Science 7, xx-xx. Edited by Ruth Barcan Marcus et al. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1985.
“Come decidere razionalmente le questioni morali.” In Ética e diritto: le vie della giustificazione razionale, xx-xx. Edited by L. Gianfor-maggio and E. Lecaldano. Rome: Laterza, 1985. Reprinted, in Eng-
32
lish, as “How to Decide Moral Questions Rationally” with appendix, “Comment on Putnam”, Crítica 18 (December 1986): 63-81. Re-printed in EET (without appendix).
Comment on “Manipulative Advertising”, by Tom Beauchamp. Busi-ness and Professional Ethics Journal 3 (spring/summer 1985): 23-8.
1986
“A Kantian Utilitarian Approach.” In Moral Rights in the Workplace, xx-xx. Edited by Gertrude Ezorsky. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986. Longer version reprinted as “The Rights of Em-ployees: The European Court of Human Rights and the Case of Young, James, and Webster” in EPMo.
“Why Do Applied Ethics?” In New Directions in Ethics: The Challenge of Applied Ethics, 225-37. Edited by Joseph P. DeMarco and Richard M. Fox. New York and London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986. Reprinted in Applied Ethics and Ethical Theory, 71-83. Edited by David M. Rosenthal and Fadlou Shehadi. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1988. Reprinted in EET.
“A Reductio ad Absurdum of Descriptivism.” In Philosophy in Britain Today, 118-34. Edited by S. G. Shanker. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986; London: Croom Helm, 1986. Reprinted in EET.
“Health.” Journal of Medical Ethics 12 (December 1986): 174-81. Re-printed in EB.
“Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity in South Africa?” South African Journal of Philosophy 5 (August 1986): 69-74. Reprinted in Philoso-phical Forum 18 (8?) (winter-spring 1987 (1986?)): 159-70. Reprinted in EPMo. Reprinted in Thinking About South Africa, xx-xx. Edited by P. Collins. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1990.
“Punishment and Retributive Justice.” Philosophical Topics 2: Papers on Ethics (fall 1986): 211-23. Reprinted in EPMo.
33
“Conventional Morality,” “Decision,” “Deliberation,” “Descriptiv-ism,” “Emotivism,” “Ethics,” “Intention,” “Prescriptivism,” “Relativism,” “Right and Wrong,” “Subjectivism, Ethical,” Uni-versalizability of Moral Judgments,” “Utilitarianism.” In The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, edited by James F. Childress and John Macquarrie, 127, 147-8, 149-50, 152, 190, 206-8, 306-7, 495, 531, 555-6, 608, 636-8, 640-3. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986. Hare defines 13 ethical terms, not-ing both their general and (where appropriate) their specifically Chris-tian meanings.
“Warunkowe i bezwarunkowe obowiazywanie norm moralnych” (“The Conditional and Unconditional Validity of Moral Norms”). Etyka 22 (1986): 19-25. (In Polish.)
Comment on “Rationality in Decision Theory and in Ethics”, by Hilary Putnam. Crítica 18 (1986).
1987
“An Ambiguity in Warnock: Comments on Warnock’s ‘Do Human Cells Have Rights’.” Bioethics 1 (April 1987): 175-8.
“Moral Reasoning About the Environment.” Journal of Applied Phi-losophy 4 (March 1987): 3-14. Reprinted in EPMo. Reprinted in Ap-plied Philosophy, xx-xx. Edited by Brenda Almond. New York: Rout-ledge, 1992.
Review of The Philosophy of Right and Wrong, by Bernard Mayo. The Philosophical Quarterly 37 (1987).
“In Vitro Fertilization and the Warnock Report.” In Ethics, Re-production and Genetic Control, xx-xx. Edited by Ruth F. Chadwick. London: Croom Helm, 1987. Reprinted in EB.
“Why Moral Language?” Chap. 5 in Metaphysics and Morality: Essays in Honour of J. J. C. Smart, edited by Philip Pettit, Rich-ard Sylvan, and Jean Norman, 71-90. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987. Reprinted as chap. 12 of ERE. x
34
Comment on “Hamlethics in Planning”, by J. Kaufmann. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 6 (summer 1987): 83-7.
“Embryo Experimentation: Public Policy in a Pluralist Society.” Bio-ethics News 7 (1987). Reprinted in IVF: The Current Debate, xx-xx. Edited by K. Dawson and J. Hudson. Clayton, Victoria: 1987. Re-printed as “Public Policy in a Pluralist Society” in Embryo Experimen-tation: Ethical, Legal and Social Issues, 183-94. Edited by Peter Singer, Helga Kuhse, Stephen Buckle, Karen Dawson, and Pascal Kasimba. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Reprinted in EB. Reprinted in Medicine and Moral Reasoning, xx-xx. Edited by K. W. M. Fulford. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
“La enseñanza de la ética médica: La contribución do la filosofía.” JANO 33 (1987).
1988
“Philosophy and the Teaching of Medical Ethics.” Medical Education (1988).
“When Does Potentiality Count? A Comment on Lockwood.” Bioeth-ics 2 (July 1988): 214-26. Reprinted in EB. Reprinted in Contingent Future Persons: On the Ethics of Deciding Who Will Live, or Not, in the Future, xx-xx. Edited by Nick Fotion and Jan C. Heller. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.
“Possible People.” Bioethics 2 (October 1988): 279-93. Reprinted in EB.
“Comments.” In Hare and Critics: Essays on Moral Thinking, 199-293. Edited by Douglas Seanor and N. Fotion. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988; paperback ed., 1990.
“A Kantian Approach to Abortion.” In Right Conduct: Theories and Applications, 2d ed., xx-xx. Edited by Michael D. Bayles and Kenneth Henley. New York: Random House, 1988. Reprinted in Social Theory and Practice: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal of Social
35
Philosophy 15 (spring 1989): 1-14. Reprinted (in Spanish, as “Un en-foque Kantiano sobre el aborto”) in Dianoia (1990): 39-50. Reprinted in The Moral Life, xx-xx. Edited by Steven Luper-Foy and C. Brown. New York: Holt Rinehart, 1991. Reprinted (with minor revisions) in EB.
“The Poverty of Ideas.” The Guardian (31 (11?) October 1988). Re-printed in Political Studies Association News (June 1990).
1989
“Abortion: Reply to Brandt.” Social Theory and Practice 15 (spring 1989): 25-32.
“Some Sub-Atomic Particles of Logic.” Mind, n.s., 98 (January 1989): 23-37. Reprinted in OP.
Essays in Ethical Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989; paperback ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 199x.
“The Structure of Ethics and Morals.” In Essays in Ethical Theory, 175-90. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Reprinted (in Spanish, as “La estructura de la etica y la moral”) in Dianoia (1988): 49-63. Reprinted in Ethics, edited by Peter Singer, 319-31. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Reprinted as “Prescriptivism: The Structure of Ethics and Morals” in Ethical Theory: Classical and Con-temporary Readings, 2d ed., edited by Louis P. Pojman, 428-35. Bel-mont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995. Reprinted as “Prescriptivism: The Structure of Ethics and Morals” in Ethical The-ory: Classical and Contemporary Readings, 3d ed., edited by Louis P. Pojman, 489-96. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998.
Essays on Political Morality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989; paperback ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 199x.
“The Role of Philosophers in the Legislative Process.” In Essays on Political Morality, 1-7. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. (Address, University of Florida, 1983.)
36
“Rebellion.” In Essays on Political Morality, 21-33. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
“Brandt on Fairness to Happiness.” Social Theory and Practice 15 (spring 1989): 59-65.
“Una Aproximación Kantiana a la Politica Sanitaria.” Agora 8 (1989). Reprinted (in English, in different form, as “Health Care Policy: Some Options”) in EB.
“Prudence and Past Preferences: Reply to Wlodizimierz Rabinowicz.” Theoria 55 (1989): 152-8.
“Universalizability and the Summing of Desires: Reply to Ingmar Persson.” Theoria 55 (1989): 171-7.
“Fanaticism: Reply to Thomas Wetterstrom.” Theoria 55 (1989): 186-90.
“Amoralism: Reply to Peter Sandoe.” Theoria 55 (1989): 205-10.
Interview with P. Apsden. Times Higher Education Supplement (June 1989).
1991
“Universal Prescriptivism.” In A Companion to Ethics, 451-63. Edited by Peter Singer. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991.
“Are There Moral Authorities?” In Reproductive Medicine, xx-xx. Ed-ited by D. R. Bromham et al. Berlin: Springer, 1991. Reprinted in ERE.
“Kant utilitarista?” Materiali per una storia della cultura giuridica 21 (1991). Reprinted, in English, as “Could Kant Have Been a Utilitar-ian?” In Zum Moralischen Denken, xx-xx. Edited by G. Meggle and C. Fehige. Suhrkamp, 1992. Reprinted (in English) in Utilitas 5 (May 1993): 1-16. Reprinted in Kant and Critique: New Essays in Honor of 37
W. H. Werkmeister, xx-xx. Edited by L. B. Brown and R. M. Dancy. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1993. Reprinted, with revisions, in SOE. Expanded version, in Chinese, in “Towards Objectivity in Morals”, in Contemporary British and American Philos-ophy and Philosophers, xx-xx. Edited by Ouyang Kang and S. Fuller. Beijing: People’s Press, 1998.
1992
“Morality, Moral Theory, and Applied and Professional Ethics: Reply to Bernard Gert.” Professional Ethics 1 (spring 1992): 25-30.
“One Philosopher’s Approach to Business and Professional Ethics.” Business and Professional Ethics Journal 11 (summer 1992): 3-19. Reprinted in Business Ethics, edited by C. Cowton and Roger Crisp, xx-xx. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 199x. Reprinted in OP.
“What Are Cities For? The Ethics of Urban Planning.” In Ethics and the Environment, xx-xx. Edited by C. C. W. Taylor. Oxford: Corpus Christi College, 1992. Reprinted in OP.
Essays on Religion and Education. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992; paperback ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
“How Did Morality Get a Bad Name?” In Essays on Religion and Edu-cation, 86-97. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
“Satanism and Nihilism.” In Essays on Religion and Education, 98-112. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
“Moral Terms”, “Prescriptivism”, “Universalizability”, “Slavery”, and “Weakness of the Will.” In Encyclopedia of Ethics, vol. xx, xx-xx, vol. xx, xx-xx, vol. xx, xx-xx, vol. xx, xx-xx, and vol. xx, xx-xx. Edited by Lawrence C. Becker and Charlotte B. Becker. New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1992. “Prescriptivism” and “Weakness of the Will” reprinted in OP.
“Utilitarianism and Moral Education: Comment on Sanford Levy’s Paper.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 11 (1992): 197-205.
38
Essays on Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993; pa-perback ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
1993
“Moral Problems About the Control of Behaviour.” In Essays on Bio-ethics, 50-66. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. (Address, Reed College, 1975.)
“Why I Am Only a Demi-Vegetarian.” In Essays on Bioethics, 219-35. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Reprinted as chap. 11 in Singer and His Critics, edited by Dale Jamieson, 233-46. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999.
“Is Medical Ethics Lost?” (and letter) Journal of Medical Ethics 19 (June 1993): 69-70. Reprinted in OP.
“Utilitarianism and Deontological Principles.” Utilitas 5 (1993). Re-printed in Principles of Health Care Ethics, xx-xx. Edited by Raanan Gillon. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1993.
“The Ethics of Medical Involvement in Torture: Commentary.” Jour-nal of Medical Ethics 19 (September 1993): 138-41. Reprinted as “The Ethics of Medical Involvement in Torture” in OP.
“Brandt’s Methods of Ethics.” In Rationality, Rules and Utility: New Essays on Richard Brandt’s Moral Philosophy, xx-xx. Edited by Brad Hooker. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993.
“Objective Prescriptions.” In Naturalism and Normativity: Philo-sophical Issues 4, xx-xx. Edited by E. Villanueva. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview, 1993. Reprinted in Ethics, 1-17. Edited by A. Phillips Griffiths. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Also in Phi-losophy, Supplementary Volume 35 (1993): 1-17. Reprinted in OP.
1994
“Applied Philosophy and Moral Theory: R. M. Hare Talks to Philos-
39
ophy Today.” Philosophy Today 38 (1994).
“Methods of Bioethics: Some Defective Proposals.” Monash Bioethics Review 13 (1994). Reprinted (with revisions) in Philosophical Perspec-tives on Bioethics, 18-36. Edited by L. W. Sumner and J. Boyle. To-ronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. Reprinted in OP.
“Philosophie et Conflit.” Revue de Métaphysique et Morale 99 (April-June 1994): 167-79. Reprinted (in English, as “Philosophy and Con-flict”) in Applied Ethics in a Troubled World, xx-xx. Edited by Edgar Morscher, Otto Neumaier, and Peter Simons. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997. Reprinted as “Philosophy and Conflict” in OP.
1995
Replies to Birnbacher et al. In Zum Moralischen Denken, xx-xx. Ed-ited by C. Fehige and G. Meggle. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 1995.
“Off on the Wrong Foot.” In On the Relevance of Metaethics: New Es-says on Metaethics, xx-xx. Edited by J. Couture and Kai Nielsen. 1995. Also in Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary Vol-ume 21 (1995): xx-xx. Reprinted as “Philippa Foot on Subjectivism” in OP.
“A New Kind of Ethical Naturalism?” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 20 (1995): 340-56. Reprinted in OP.
1996
“Philosophy of Language in Ethics.” In Handbuch Sprachphilosophie, xx-xx. Edited by M. Dascal et al. Berlin: DeGruyter, 1996. Re-printed, with revisions, in SOE.
“Impératifs, prescriptions et leur logique.” In Dictionnaire de Philoso-phie Morale, xx-xx. Edited by M. Canto-Sperber. Paris: Presses Uni-versitaires de France, 1996. Reprinted as “Imperatives, Prescrip-tions, and Their Logic” in OP.
40
“Foundationalism and Coherentism in Ethics.” In Moral Knowledge? New Readings in Moral Epistemology, 190-9. Edited by Walter Sin-nott-Armstrong and Mark Timmons. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Reprinted in OP.
“Internalism and Externalism in Ethics.” In Proceedings of the 17th International Wittgenstein Congress, xx-xx. Edited by J. Hintikka and K. Puhl. Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1996. Reprinted in OP.
“Hare: A Philosophical Self-Portrait.” In A Dictionary of Philosophy, xx-xx. Edited by Thomas Mautner. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.
1997
Sorting Out Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997; paperback ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19xx.
“Defence of the Enterprise.” In Sorting Out Ethics, 29-40. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
“A Taxonomy of Ethical Theories.” In Sorting Out Ethics, 42-145. Ox-ford: Clarendon Press, 1997. (The Axel Hägerström Lectures, Upp-sala University, Sweden, 1991.)
1998
“Preferences of Possible People.” In Preferences, xx-xx. Edited by C. Fehige and U. Wessels. Berlin: DeGruyter, 1998. Reprinted in OP.
“Prescriptivism.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, xx-xx. Ed-ited by E. Craig. London: Routledge, 1998. Reprinted in OP.
“A Utilitarian Approach to Ethics.” In A Companion to Bioethics, xx-xx. Edited by Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. Reprinted in expanded form in OP.
“Towards Objectivity in Morals.” In Contemporary British and Ameri-can Philosophy and Philosophers, xx-xx. Edited by Ouyang Kang and
41
S. Fuller. Beijing: People’s Press, 1998. (In Chinese.)
Interview, “Die Vernunft kommt zuerst.” In Einladen zum Denken, xx-xx. Edited by Borchers et al. Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1998.
1999
Objective Prescriptions, and Other Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999; paperback ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19xx.
“Loyalty and Obedience.” Chap. 15 in Objective Prescriptions, and Other Essays, 168-78. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. (Address, West Point Military Academy, 1989.)
“Why Racism Is an Evil.” Chap. 16 in Objective Prescriptions, and Other Essays, 179-85. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.
2002
“A Philosophical Autobiography.” Utilitas 14 (November 2002): 269-305.
“Universalizability.” In Dictionary of Business Ethics, xx-xx. Edited by R. E. Freeman and P. H. Werhane. Oxford: xxxx. Canceled?
“Postscript.” In Foundations for Moral Education, xx-xx. Edited by J. M. Halstead and T. H. MacLaughlin. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, xxxx. Canceled?
“Non-descriptivism.” In Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Supplement, xx-xx. Edited by Louis P. Pojman. xxxx. Canceled?
LM = The Language of Morals (1952).
FR = Freedom and Reason (1963).
PI = Practical Inferences (1971).
EPMe = Essays on Philosophical Method (1971).
EMC = Essays on the Moral Concepts (1972).
AMP = Applications of Moral Philosophy (1972).
42
MT = Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point (1981).
P = Plato (1982).
EET = Essays in Ethical Theory (1989).
EPMo = Essays on Political Morality (1989).
ERE = Essays on Religion and Education (1992).
EB = Essays on Bioethics (1993).
SOE = Sorting Out Ethics (1997).
OP = Objective Prescriptions, and Other Essays (1999).
Bibliographies are in PI (1949-1971), MT (1971-1982), Hare and Crit-ics (1981-1989), Moralisches Denken (1949-1992), Zum Moralischen Denken (1949-1995; which I have), and SOE (1949-1998).
Richard Mervyn Hare was born on 21 March 1919 and died on 29 January 2002
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment