Categorical Imperatives, Prescriptivism and the Golden Rule

NMB, Florida February 17, 2002 A.H. Schectman

THINKING ALLOWED
Essays on Issues, Ideas and Reflections on the Times. Published Now and
Then. Opinions Pro or Con Are Welcome.

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES, PRESCRIPTIVISM AND THE
GOLDEN RULE

R. M. Hare died on January 29 at the age of 83. He was a philosopher
known for founding a moral philosophy called "Prescriptivism." He was
eulogized in the New York Times this morning on p. 29 with a pretty good
picture of how he looked when along in years.

He looked for logic in morality. It was reported in his obituary that he
looked for some mechanism to explain why it was better to do good than to do
bad things. He called on Kant's "categorical imperative" and wished to
remove the philosophical hunt for that imperative from "emotionalism". It
had been believed that morals had to do with one's emotions. Kant put it on
another route when he said one should behave as though obeying a universal
law. Prescriptivism, according to Hare, involves linguistic analysis,
avoids emotional responses and has a universal nature. He stated that it
applies throughout time and is everywhere the same.

Now I have studied philosophy a bit and there is a lot that I don't
understand and do not know. I do know, however, that Mr. Richard Mervyn
Hare spent a lifetime trying to improve on the idea that it is best to
behave in one's own interests. This ancient idea has been formulated into
two propositions one positive and one negatively stated. They are, do unto
others as you would have them do unto you. And, do not do unto others as
you would not have them do unto you. It seems to me that if you were to
accept this idea and everyone else were to accept it a common morality would
provide equilibrium to social interactions and peace especially where there
is the reverse of these propositions. The one deadly one that is followed
around the world and back seems to be, do unto the other guy first before he
does it to you.

Mr. Hare may have come up with a more rational ethical theory than the
emotionalism of the past but it seems he spent a lot of effort wasting his
time. He is, however, noted for his contributions to the universe of
discourse. Carol's Evaluation: 8 out of 10.