Abstract

The universalizability thesis plays a central role in Richard Hare’s theory of moral reasoning. According to Hare, it is a formal principle. This paper gives an account of the relation between universalizability, on the one hand, and supervenience, the Golden Rule, and the principle of impartiality, on the other. It also attempts to sort out some difficulties arising from Hare’s views about universalizability, and to show that Hare’s ethical nondescriptivism leaves open the door to amoralism