Question

Can Hare's notion of universalizability be both a necessary and a sufficient condition for moral principles? Explain your answer.

Answer 1

Answer.

The general principle of moral universalizability is that moral principles, norms, facts, etc., are universally true and can in some sense be applied to all cases (to all other persons, actions, etc.) Some philosophers, like Richard Hare, moral universalizability is the foundation of all moral facts. However, in itself, it cannot be a superservient notion like Hare argued. When the person reflects upon how someone else's performance of the same behavior in question such as killing and eating an animal, might harm herself or himself, then he/ she would find that one cannot approve of the behaviour as morally right even if it may have some universal ethical utility. This suggests that if one should also disapprove the same behaviour in oneself, judging it morally wrong. The problem with Hare’s idea of universalisability of a moral ethic is that it does not specify exactly what effects of the behavior would be grounds for considering it impermissible, and therefore cannot be a necessary and sufficient condition in itself.