My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad


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

November 25, 2003



I think Hare's two level theory is more sophisticated than Lafave believes it to be (for background see this: ; 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.


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:-))

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)