My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

Rings

« Michelangelo's Breasts | Main | Quiet in the east »

November 25, 2003

Comments

Shai

I think Hare's two level theory is more sophisticated than Lafave believes it to be (for background see this: http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/bioethics/ethicaltheory/index4.html ; I'm certainly not an expert myself, but I'm hearing about Hare in intro ethics this semester from someone whose thesis advisor was Hare)

And Lafave flirts with a fictionalism or eliminativism that I don't think necessarily follows if you take into account what Hare has to say about intuitive level thinking. No doubt, there is tension, even conflict, between "levels", if you believe as Hare does, that "common morality" should be sensitive to other "levels" of moral thinking. But the distinction isn't an entirely arbitrary way to deal with the demandingness objection, as fictionalism or eliminativism seem to suggest.

Charles Stewart

Shai: good point. I've pointed out an analogy to the way Hare's theory of utility works to the way Frege determines reference in his theory of meaning at my weblog.

KasyDyeta

Cool, good job, i like you site.
i am wishing you a new clients and be happy with your further projects.
Mark (ex-golden boy:-))

The comments to this entry are closed.