Universal prescriptivism
Universal prescriptivism is a moral theory that posits judgments should function as imperative statements that everyone ought to follow. Introduced by British philosopher R.H. Hare in his 1952 work, "The Language of Morals," this theory asserts that moral judgments must be universally applicable and that the individual making the judgment must genuinely believe and adhere to it. For example, a statement like "Stealing is wrong" meets the criteria for universality as it applies to all individuals without specifying names, and prescriptivism as the speaker must also refrain from stealing.
Despite its significance in moral philosophy, universal prescriptivism faces considerable criticism in contemporary discourse. Critics argue that it neglects personal will and situational nuances, such as cases of extreme necessity that might render a judgment like "It is wrong to steal" problematic. Additionally, some worry that the theory could permit morally questionable judgments to be framed as universally applicable. While the concept has experienced waning support, Hare's contributions continue to be studied, marking him as a key figure in 20th-century moral philosophy.
On this Page
Universal prescriptivism
Universal prescriptivism is the theory that judgments are imperative statements that people should follow. To adhere to the theory, a judgment must be worded so that it universally applies to all people. It must also be believed and adhered to by the person who has made the judgment. The theory of universal prescriptivism was first introduced by the British philosopher R.H. Hare in his 1952 book The Language of Morals. In the twenty-first century, the theory of universal prescriptivism is widely criticized for not considering a person’s will in carrying out a moral imperative and because it is possible for an immoral statement to meet the criteria of universal prescriptivism.
Background
R.M. (Richard Mervyn) Hare (1919–2002) was a British moral philosopher who was the White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford from 1996 to 1983. After this, he taught at the University of Florida until 1994. During the second half of the twenty-first century, Hare was one of the most influential philosophers of the time, earning great praise for his meta-ethical theories, which were concerned with morals and moral language.
Hare’s life experiences weighed heavily in the formation of his philosophical views. Hare was a pacifist, yet he volunteered to serve in the Royal Artillery. He failed his first medical exam because of poor eyesight, however, but became determined to engage in active service oversees. He was taken as a prisoner of war by the Japanese in 1942 and held until the end of World War II in 1945. He later said that he and his fellow prisoners survived on the vegetables they grew and while there, he managed to write a page or two of his philosophical thoughts. After his release, Hare believed that he had an obligation to help people learn to behave moralistically. Hare introduced universal prescriptivism in his book The Language of Morals, published in 1952. According to Hare, it is impossible to formulate a prescription from descriptive sentences. A prescription should be a direct imperative such as “It is wrong to kill.” Hare’s theory—which purports that universality applies to language and prescriptivism centers on actions—is said to have been influenced by emotivism. This theory holds that moral judgments are not statements of fact but the speaker’s feelings or opinions. Hare is also believed to have been influenced by categorical imperative, which introduced by the philosopher Immanuel Kant. A categorial imperative is an unconditional rule of conduct.
Overview
According to universal prescriptivism, moral terms used to make judgments should have both universality and prescriptivism. Examples of moral terms are “right,” “good,” and “wrong.” A judgment that is universal can describe a situation but must do so in universal terms that apply to everyone. Therefore, they should exclude proper names. Prescriptivism means that the person making the judgment must adhere to it and apply it equally to others. For example, “Stealing is wrong” is a judgment. It is universal because it does not include proper names or identify any one person. Therefore, it applies to everyone. To also be prescriptive, the person making the statement should not steal and should consider it wrong for anyone to steal. Consider this judgment: “It is wrong for my son to steal food from the pantry.” This statement is not universal because of the words “my son.” However, it can be rewritten in universal terms: “It is wrong to steal food from the pantry.” For the statement to be prescriptive, however, the speaker could never steal food from the pantry and must believe that it is wrong for anyone else to steal food from the pantry under any circumstances.
According to Hare, the statement, “If a friend asks for help, it is wrong to refuse” meets the universality requirement because it is general and can apply to everyone. However, whether it meets the prescriptivism requirement is not as clear. First, the speaker must believe it to be true, and second, the speaker is required to meet the requirement should the situation be reversed—if a friend asks the speaker for help. If the speaker does not act accordingly, he or she has violated the rule of prescriptivism and, according to Hare, the speaker would not be making a judgment at all.
Universal prescriptivism has been widely criticized and has few, if any, supporters in the twenty-first century. In addition to being ambiguous, the theory does not consider akrasia, or a weakness of will. For example, a person might make the judgment “It is wrong to steal.” However, suppose the person is extremely hungry and has no other option than to steal food. Is it still wrong to steal in this case? Most people would say that it is not, regardless of the judgment.
The consequences of an action may also conflict with the theory. For example, would it be wrong to steal a bomb that someone plans to detonate to harm others? In this case, the consequences of not stealing the bomb are great. It is more ethical to steal the bomb than to uphold the judgment that it is wrong to steal.
Some opponents of universal prescriptivism argue that the theory can conflict with what is commonly perceived as being right or wrong or good or bad. For example, a speaker might make a judgment that children should be beaten when they misbehave. The speaker phrases the judgment so that it applies to everyone and believes it to be true and behaves accordingly. However, most people would view the speaker’s statement as wrong and immoral.
Despite the criticism of universal prescriptivism, however, Hare’s work is still studied for its contribution to the field of philosophy. Hare is also considered one of the major moral thinkers of the twentieth century.
Bibliography
Benn, Piers. “R.M. Hare (1919–2002).” Philosophy Now, 2002, philosophynow.org/issues/35/RM‗Hare‗1919-2002. Accessed 20 Jan. 2022.
Bense, Kiley. “The Problem with Prescriptivism.” The Isis, 7 June 2012, isismagazine.org.uk/2012/06/the-problem-with-prescriptivism/. Accessed 20 Jan. 2022.
McIntyre, John. “Prescription for Prescriptivists.” The Baltimore Sun, 1 Sept. 2011, www.baltimoresun.com/bs-mtblog-2011-09-prescription‗for‗prescriptivists-story.html. Accessed 20 Jan. 2022.
O’Grady, Jane. “Richard Hare.” The Guardian, 1 Feb. 2002, www.theguardian.com/news/2002/feb/01/guardianobituaries.humanities. Accessed 20 Jan. 2022.
“Richard Hare.” Utilitarianism, www.utilitarianism.net/utilitarian-thinker/richard-hare. Accessed 20 Jan. 2022.