Essay about Comparison Between Hare And Murdoch

1921 Words Dec 19th, 2016 8 Pages
Not Every Morality Is U-type

Hare and Murdoch are two influential philosophers for their philosophies of the morality. In Hare’s “Universalizability”, he states that “I now wish to argue that all moral valuations are of type U”, later in the text “that all moral uses of the word ‘ought’ involve a U-type maxim is apparent.” He means every morality is considered as the U-type. Murdoch disagrees with Hare and claims that not every morality is U-Type. In her literature “Vision And Choice”, she says “my second argument will be to the effect that certain moralities make use, positively, of a quite different model.” It seems that Hare can give an objection towards Murdoch because he believes non-U-types moral valuations are not understandable so morality should not be non-U-type. However, Murdoch has an opposite opinion that non-U-type moral valuations are also understandable so not every moral valuation is U-type because the moral valuation comes from the non-general reason also exists in our real life. First, it is necessary to know what is U-Type. It can be seen on the first page of Hare’s “Universalizability”, Hare refers to Gellner to talk about what is U-type and there is also an E-type that represents a different value. According to Hare’s reference from Gellner, “E-type valuation cannot be universalizing, i.e., its maxim cannot be deduced (in the sense in which an exemplification is deduced from the rule it exemplifies) from an open rule formulated with the help of only…

Related Documents