Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Methods and Point

by R.M. Hare

In this work, the author has fashioned out of the logical and linguistic theses of his earlier books a full-scale but readily intelligible account of moral argument.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction

252 pages, Paperback

First published December 17, 1981

Reviews

[Turbulent_Architect · Rating 5 out of 5]

The last of Hare's major ethical works and quite possibly the best. Moral Thinking recapitulates, clarifies, and expands upon the utilitarian theory sketched in Freedom and Reason. Hare's main contribution here is without a doubt his distinction between the "intuitive" (or everyday) and "critical" (or foundational) levels of moral thinking, which serves to dissipate some of the most frequent misunderstandings of and objections to utilitarianism. Like his other works, Moral Thinking has largely been forgotten by contemporary analytic philosophy. To my mind, though, it remains one of the greatest works of ethical theory of the twentieth century.

[Elc · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read for 'Moral Reasoning'. Question (someone else's in class): Does Hare's account of moral reasoning actually describe morality's historical progress?

[FP⚡️]

Stylistically and structurally, it's quite messy, but in substance, I think Hare is the closest to my own moral views that I've ever read. The ending is brilliant.

[Jonathan Norton · Rating 2 out of 5]

The continuing evolution of Hare's prescriptivism (from 1981) sees him now taking account of the challenge from Rawls. His theory is now explicitly utilitarian, and the distinction between "intuitive" and "critical" levels introduced. Analytic, conceptual claims are no longer treated as simply as they were back in the 50s. Anti-utilitarians get dismissed for offering unreal counter-examples, which is odd given that his method in "Freedom And Reason" emphasised the importance of hypothetical cases and unreal role-reversal thought-experiments. But he does admit that his view can't rebut a thoroughgoing amoralism. Thomas Nagel's review in the LRB is useful.

[Courtney · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm not buying Hare's attempt to merge Kantian deontology with utilitarianism. Kant defines ethics by the will with an action is performed while Bentham/Mill define ethics as a maximization of happiness. So trying to reconcile intent with outcome seems like a non-starter to me.