R.M. Hare

1919-2002

Richard Hare was a prominent 20th century ethicist who defended an unusual and surprising mix of Kant and preference utilitarianism. Like Kant, his account begins from the logic of the moral "ought." He claims, however, that the universalizability of moral judgements, coupled with general facts about human beings and the human condition, implies a two-level form of utilitarianism. He claims that this version answers the standard objections to utilitarianism better than any other version, and that it explains a lot of the reactions people have to the Bloggs-type cases from which we began.

The best place to read an overview of Hare's position as described here is his book Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point (Oxford University Press, 1981).

Hare's basic argument:

The logic of
moral terms
like "ought"

plus

Facts about
human nature
and the
human condition

lead
to

A two level
version of
utilitarianism

1. The universalizability of moral judgments implies preference utilitarianism.

It is a logical feature of natural language that moral judgments (expressed in terms of "ought" claims, or claims about what is "right") are both (1) universalizable and (2) overriding.
By this he means that, in order to sincerely assent to the judgement that "A ought to do X to B and C," one must sincerely assent to the judgements that "B ought to do X to A and C" and "C ought to do X to A and B," were their various roles switched, and one must assent to this irrespective of what one's individual preferences are (that is, whether one is A rather than B or C).
And this means, according to Hare, that Kantian universalizability implies preference utilitarianism. For to sincerely assent to an ought claim is to prefer that the thing in question be done, even if one had to occupy, successively, the positions of each and every one of the persons involved.
Hare's criterion of universalizability thus combines the intuitiveness of the traditional Golden Rule (do unto others what you would have them do unto you -- you imagine yourself in the others' shoes) with the precision of the philosophers' condition of universalizability (when doing so, you are to imagine yourself having the others' preferences rather than your own). So one way to think of Hare's view is as providing a secular defense of the Golden Rule (one based on the logic of moral judgments rather than divine authority) and an argument to the conclusion that the Golden Rule, properly understood, implies preference utilitarianism.

2. However, human beings need both "intuitive level moral principles" and "critical thinking."

Humans' basic preferences are pretty uniform, but
Humans vary in their ability to think critically and to act on what they determine to be correct moral principles, and across time and varying circumstances, the same individual varies in these same ways.

C. This implies that one should embrace a two-level version of utilitarianism:

"Intuitive
level"
thinking Acceptance
utility
based
rule
utilitarianism Prima facie principles governing general types of cases commonly encountered by people, for use:

when there isn't time for critical thinking, or
when one can't trust one's critical thinking.

"Critical
level"
thinking Act utilitarianism
or
"specific rule utilitarianism"
For use:

when prima facie principles conflict,
in unusual cases, or
when both (a) it is clear that utility can be maximized a certain way and (b) one can trust one's judgment that this is so.

Hare uses the images of "the archangel" and "the prole" to help us understand why humans need both kinds of thinking by contrasting us with a being who would have no need for intuitive level principles (the archangel) and one who would be incapable of critical thinking (the prole).

"The archangel"	&	"the prole"
super-human knowledge		ignorant, uninformed
super-human powers of critical thinking		incapable of critical thinking
no human weaknesses		weaknesses in the extreme degree

Three kinds of intuitive level principles:

Common morality: Insofar as members of a society face similar problems, we would expect agreement to emerge on basic standards which everyone in the society will be expected to live up to. Moreover, given the universal features of the human condition, we would expect there to be many similarities between the common moralities of various cultures at different times and places.
Professional ethics: Insofar as those in certain roles face similar kinds of situations repeatedly, we would expect agreement to emerge on basic standards for the conduct of various professionals and others in special roles.
Personal morality: And insofar as individuals differ in their abilities to reason critically under various circumstances, critical thinking will lead different individuals to train themselves to adhere to different sets of intuitive level rules, including "metaprinciples" for deciding when to engage in critical thinking and when to stick unquestioningly to one's intuitive level priniciples.

"Intuitive level" thinking	Acceptance utility based rule utilitarianism	Prima facie principles governing general types of cases commonly encountered by people, for use: when there isn't time for critical thinking, or when one can't trust one's critical thinking.
"Critical level" thinking	Act utilitarianism or "specific rule utilitarianism"	For use: when prima facie principles conflict, in unusual cases, or when both (a) it is clear that utility can be maximized a certain way and (b) one can trust one's judgment that this is so.

R.M. Hare

1919-2002

Hare's basic argument:

"The archangel"

&

"the prole"

Three kinds of intuitive level principles: