Universal prescriptivism

File:RMHare.jpg

RMHare

Universal Prescriptivism is a moral philosophy theory developed by the British philosopher R.M. Hare in the 20th century. It is a form of non-cognitivism that asserts the primary function of moral language is not to state facts but to prescribe actions and attitudes. According to universal prescriptivism, moral statements are neither true nor false but are expressions of commands or imperatives that are universalizable.

Overview

Universal prescriptivism holds that when we make moral judgments, we are not merely expressing our personal preferences but are instead issuing commands that we believe should apply universally. For example, if someone says, "Stealing is wrong," they are not just stating their disapproval of stealing; they are prescribing that no one should steal, in any similar situation. This theory emphasizes the importance of consistency in moral reasoning and the principle of universalizability, which requires that one should be willing to apply the same moral judgment to all similar cases, regardless of personal interest or attachment.

Key Concepts

Moral Language

In universal prescriptivism, moral language plays a crucial role. It is seen as prescriptive, meaning it is used to express commands, prohibitions, or recommendations rather than to describe the world. Hare argued that moral language has both a descriptive and a prescriptive function, but its primary function is prescriptive.

Universalizability

A central tenet of universal prescriptivism is the principle of universalizability. This principle asserts that if a moral judgment is valid for one situation, it must be applied consistently to all similar situations. This requires individuals to detach from their personal biases and consider what they would prescribe universally.

Prescriptivity

Prescriptivity refers to the action-guiding nature of moral statements. According to universal prescriptivism, moral statements are not just expressions of emotion or subjective preferences but are commands that aim to guide behavior. They have an imperative character that is intended to be binding on anyone in a similar situation.

Criticism and Support

Universal prescriptivism has been both criticized and supported for various reasons. Critics argue that it fails to account for the complexity of moral emotions and the role of descriptive facts in moral reasoning. They also question whether moral statements can truly be universalized, given the diversity of human experiences and values. Supporters, however, appreciate the theory's emphasis on rational consistency and its attempt to provide a clear basis for moral discourse and decision-making.

Relation to Other Ethical Theories

Universal prescriptivism shares similarities with Kantian ethics, especially in its emphasis on universalizability and the rational basis of moral judgments. However, it differs from Kantian ethics in its non-cognitivist approach, viewing moral statements as prescriptions rather than expressions of objective truths. It also contrasts with utilitarianism and emotivism, offering a distinct perspective on the nature and function of moral language.

Conclusion

Universal prescriptivism represents a significant contribution to moral philosophy, particularly in its analysis of moral language and the principles of moral reasoning. While it has faced criticism, its emphasis on consistency, rationality, and the prescriptive nature of moral judgments continues to influence ethical theory and discourse.