Could Kant Have Been a Utilitarian?

  • R. M. Hare
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 227)


My aim in this paper is to ask a question, not to answer it. To answer it with confidence would require more concentrated study of Kant’s text than I have yet had time for. I have read his main ethical works, and formed some tentative conclusions which I shall diffidently state. I have also read some of his Englishspeaking disciples and would-be disciples, but not, I must admit, any of his German expositors except Leonard Nelson. My purpose in raising the question is to enlist the help of others in answering it.


Moral Judgment Moral Reasoning Moral Philosophy Categorical Imperative Moral Thinking 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Bibliography

  1. Gr.: Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, trans. H.J. Paton, The Moral Law: Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, London: Hutchinson, 1948.Google Scholar
  2. KpV: Kritik derpraktischen Vernunft, trans. L.W. Beck, Critique ofPractical Reason, Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1956.Google Scholar
  3. KrV: Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, trans. NKS: N.K. Smith, Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, second edition, London: Macmillan, 1933.Google Scholar
  4. KU: Kritik der Urteilskraft, first part, trans. J.C. Meredith, Kant’s Critique of Aesthetic Judgement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1911.Google Scholar
  5. Rl.: Metaphysik der Sitten, first part, Rechtslehre, trans. J. Ladd, The Metaphysical Elements of Justice, Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1965.Google Scholar
  6. Tgl.: Metaphysik der Sitten, second part, Tugendlehre, trans. M. Gregor, The Doctrine of Virtue, New York: Harper and Row, 1964.Google Scholar
  7. Other writings. References are to year of first publication unless otherwise indicated. Hare, R.M., Freedom and Reason, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  8. Hare, R.M., ‘The Promising Game’, Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 18 (1964), 398–412. Reprinted in his Essays in Ethical Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  9. Hare, R.M., ‘Principles’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 73 (1972), 1–18. Reprinted in his Essays in Ethical Theor.Google Scholar
  10. Hare, R.M., Critical Notice of Rawls, A Theory ofJustice, Philosophical Quarterly, 23 (1973), 144–155, 241–252. Reprinted in his Essays in Ethical Theory.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hare, R.M., ‘Rights, Utility and Universalization: Reply to J.L. Mackie’, in R. Frey, ed., Utility and Rights. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984. Reprinted in his Essays on Political Morality (Oxford University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  12. Hare, R.M., ‘Comments’, in zz Seanor and zz Fotion (1988).Google Scholar
  13. Harsanyi, J.C., ‘Problems with Act-Utilitarianism and with Malevolent Preferences’, in zz Seanor and zz Fotion (1988).Google Scholar
  14. Lyons, D., Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mackie, J.L., ‘Rights, Utility and Universalization’, with reply by R.M. Hare, in R. Frey, ed., Utility and Rights. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. Mill, J.S., Utilitarianism, Fraser’s Magazine, Oct.-Dec. 1861. Reprinted London, 1863..Google Scholar
  17. Prichard, H.A., ‘Does Moral Philosophy Rest on a Mistake’, Mind, 21 (1912), 21–37. Reprinted in his Moral Obligation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  19. Richards, D.A.J., ‘Prescriptivism, Constructivism and Rights’, in zz Seanor and zz Fotion (1988).Google Scholar
  20. Seanor, D., and N. Fotion, eds., Hare and Critics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  21. Williams, B.A.O., ‘The Structure of Hare’s Theory’, in zz Seanor and xx Fotion (1988).Google Scholar
  22. More people have helped and encouraged me in writing this than I have space to list. I should like to mention especially Onora O’Neill and Ralph Walker and their writings; John Biro; and Rory Weiner and Ronnie Hawkins, who joined me in my search for relevant passages in Kant’s works. I owe a continuing debt to H. J. Paton, who first introduced me to Kant, and whose commentaries are still to be valued for their thoroughness, penetration and fairmindedness. I have found the following papers particularly useful. Alexy, R., ‘R.M. Hares Regeln des moralischen Argumentierens und L. Nelsons Abwägungsgesetz’, in P. Schröder, ed., Vernunft, Erkenntnis, Sittlichkeit Hamburg: Meiner, 1979.Google Scholar
  23. Auxter, T., Kant’s Moral Teleology. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  24. Cummiskey, D., ‘Kantian Consequentialism’, Ethics, 100 (1990), 586–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harris, N.G.E., ‘Kantian Duties and Immoral Agents’, Kant-Studien, 83 (1992), 336–343.Google Scholar
  26. Harrison, J., ‘Utilitarianism, Universalization, Heteronomy and Necessity or Unkantian Ethics’, in N. Potter and M. Timmons, eds., Morality and Universality. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985.Google Scholar
  27. Lo, P.-C., ‘A Critical Reevaluation of the Alleged “Empty Formalism” of Kantian Ethics’, Ethics, 91 (1981), 181–201.Google Scholar
  28. Piper, A.M.S., ‘A Distinction without a Difference’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 7 (1982), 403–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. M. Hare
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Oxford UniversityUK
  2. 2.The University of FloridaUSA

Personalised recommendations