Two Approaches to Discovering and Applying Morals: Objective vs. Subjective in the Works of Father/Son Duo6 min read

In the realm of moral philosophy, the father-son duo of R. M. Hare and John E. Hare present two distinct approaches to understanding and applying ethical principles. Their works offer a fascinating exploration of how we practically decide on moral principles and how we apply them in community.

Both of them ask us to consider consequences such as damage to people or living things. However, the subjective moralist father says that in order to determine what is right we must consider the preferences of all the affected parties, that is, their subjective preferences and perspectives. Therefore, to sum up, the son John E. Hare says we should consider the commands of God as the measure of what is objectively right, and temper our understanding and application of those by examining the consequences. His father does not consider that there is any objective moral right and so must rely on the preferences of the majority in combination with the impact that has on the individual parties.

1. Richard Mervyn Hare: Balancing Preference and Consequentialism

R. M. Hare, a leading figure in 20th-century moral philosophy, is best known for his development of universal prescriptivism and preference utilitarianism. His approach is rooted in the idea that moral judgments are both prescriptive and universalizable. This means that when we make a moral judgment, we are not only expressing our preferences but also prescribing them for everyone in similar situations.

Hare’s preference utilitarianism emphasizes the satisfaction of individual preferences as the basis for moral decision-making. He argues that rational moral reasoning requires us to consider the preferences of all affected parties and to act in a way that maximizes overall preference satisfaction. This approach attempts to balance subjective preferences with the consequentialist goal of achieving the best outcomes for the greatest number of people.

R. M. Hare might criticize his son’s reliance on Divine Command Theory for potentially leading to rigid moral rules that do not account for the complexities and nuances of real-world situations. He might argue that relying on divine declarations might overlook the importance of individual preferences and the practical consequences of actions.

2. John E. Hare: Balancing Divine Command and Consequentialism

In contrast, John E. Hare, influenced by his Christian faith, integrates Kantian deontological ethics with Divine Command Theory. He argues for the existence of moral absolutes, which are grounded in the commands of a loving and just God. For John, moral obligations are not merely about satisfying preferences but about adhering to objective moral truths revealed through divine commands.

John E. Hare also incorporates consequentialist considerations into his framework, recognizing that the outcomes of actions are important. He seeks to balance the objective moral duties derived from divine commands with the practical need to consider the consequences of actions.

John E. Hare might critique preference utilitarianism for its potential to justify morally questionable actions if the preferences themselves are misguided or harmful. He emphasizes the importance of aligning human preferences with objective moral truths, which he believes are accessible through rational moral reasoning and divine revelation.

3. Bridging the Philosophical Divide

While R. M. Hare’s approach offers a flexible and context-sensitive method for moral reasoning, John E. Hare’s framework provides a robust foundation for moral absolutes and duties. Together, their works highlight the rich diversity of thought in moral philosophy and the ongoing dialogue between subjective and objective approaches to ethics.

In exploring the philosophies of R. M. Hare and John E. Hare, we gain valuable insights into the complexities of moral reasoning and the different paths one can take in the quest for ethical understanding. Whether through the subjective lens of preference satisfaction or the objective grounding of divine commands, the Hares’ contributions continue to shape and inspire contemporary discussions in moral philosophy.

4. Books and Articles to Read by the Hare’s

Here are some key works by R. M. Hare and John E. Hare that provide a great introduction to their philosophical thoughts:

4.1 R. M. Hare Works

1. The Language of Morals (1952) – This foundational work introduces Hare’s theory of universal prescriptivism and explores the logical structure of moral language.
2. Freedom and Reason (1963) – In this book, Hare further develops his ideas on moral reasoning and the role of freedom in ethical decision-making.
3. Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point (1981) – This work outlines Hare’s two-level utilitarianism, balancing intuitive and critical moral thinking.
4. Essays on Philosophical Method (1971) – A collection of essays that delve into various aspects of Hare’s philosophical methodology.

4.2 John E. Hare Works

1. The Moral Gap: Kantian Ethics, Human Limits, and God’s Assistance (1996) – This book explores the gap between moral demands and human capacities, arguing for the necessity of divine assistance.
2. God’s Call: Moral Realism, God’s Commands, and Human Autonomy (2001) – John E. Hare examines the relationship between divine commands and human moral autonomy
3. Why Bother Being Good? The Place of God in the Moral Life (2002) – This work discusses the role of God in providing a foundation for moral obligations.
4. God and Morality: A Philosophical History (2007) – Hare traces the historical development of the relationship between God and morality.

These books and papers will give you a comprehensive understanding of their respective approaches to moral philosophy.