Abstract

Hare's important book Freedom and Reason has arguments applying the thesis of universalizability (a kind of neutrality principle) to a variety of cases. The procedure involves considering persons in different roles. I argue from a consideration of Hare's multilateral case (judge and thief) that the thesis by itself cannot enable one to reach the conclusion Hare intends. I argue that Hare's arguments require additional principles or premises to reach their desired conclusion. All of this bears on the possibility of extracting utilitarianism from rather formal principles about neutrality of judgments. My arguments suggest this is not the case.