What is your answer?
Hare's Freedom and Reason presupposes that
{ 1 } - there can be logical relationships (like logical entailments and inconsistency) between prescriptive judgments, including imperatives.
{ 2 } - moral judgments are universalizable.
{ 3 } - moral judgements are prescriptive.
{ 4 } - all of the above.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 4.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
Hare's Freedom and Reason presupposes that
{ 1 } - there can be logical relationships (like logical entailments and inconsistency) between prescriptive judgments, including imperatives.
{ 2 } - moral judgments are universalizable.
{ 3 } - moral judgements are prescriptive.
{ 4 } - all of the above.
So "Read all of Kant's books" plus "The Groundwork is one of Kant's books" logically entails "Read the Groundwork." Here an imperative plus a statement entails another imperative.
But there's more.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
Hare's Freedom and Reason presupposes that
{ 1 } - there can be logical relationships (like logical entailments and inconsistency) between prescriptive judgments, including imperatives.
{ 2 } - moral judgments are universalizable.
{ 3 } - moral judgements are prescriptive.
{ 4 } - all of the above.
"A ought to be done" entails "Anything like A in the relevant respects also ought to be done."
So consistency demands that we make similar evaluations about similar cases.
But there's more.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is wrong. Please try again.
Hare's Freedom and Reason presupposes that
{ 1 } - there can be logical relationships (like logical entailments and inconsistency) between prescriptive judgments, including imperatives.
{ 2 } - moral judgments are universalizable.
{ 3 } - moral judgements are prescriptive.
{ 4 } - all of the above.
"You ought to do this" logically entails "Do this."
Since ought judgments prescribe actions (tell us what to do), they logically commit us to certain ways of living. We're inconsistent if we accept an ought judgment but don't act accordingly.
But there's more.
<= back | menu | forward =>
4 is correct!
Hare's Freedom and Reason presupposes that
{ 1 } - there can be logical relationships (like logical entailments and inconsistency) between prescriptive judgments, including imperatives.
{ 2 } - moral judgments are universalizable.
{ 3 } - moral judgements are prescriptive.
{ 4 } - all of the above.
Hare's first book (The Language of Morals) argued for these points but didn't combine them to produce a method of moral reasoning.
He had all the pieces of the puzzle -- but hadn't figured out how to put them together.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
the end