Hare's prescriptivism shows that universalizability permits role-differentiated prescriptions, so approving harm to others does not entail approving harm to oneself in relevantly different circumstances.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Entail(In logical reasoning and argumentation): To logically follow or guarantee as a necessary consequence; if something is true, what does it force to also be true?
Hare(as the philosopher whose theory is being discussed): R.M. Hare was a 20th-century British philosopher who developed a theory about how moral language works, arguing that when we make moral judgments we're really giving prescriptions (like commands or recommendations) about how people should act.
Role-differentiated prescriptions(as a way that universalizability can still allow different rules for different people): Rules or commands that can apply differently to people depending on their specific position or role (like a teacher has different responsibilities than a student), rather than everyone following exactly the same rule.
Universalizability(One of Hare's two key formal features of moral language): The formal feature of moral judgments by which an 'ought' judgment commits the speaker to a general principle applicable to all relevantly similar cases, including hypothetical cases in which the speaker occupies a different role
prescriptivism(Hare's metaethical theory): The view that moral judgments function as general commands, such that accepting a moral judgment directed at oneself involves an intention to act in accordance with it

2 topics