The universalizability principle U says (roughly) "If it's all right for you do A, then it's all right for anyone else in similar circumstances to do A." Moral philosophers are in almost universal agreement regarding
The universalizability principle U says (roughly) "If it's all right for you do A, then it's all right for anyone else in similar circumstances to do A." Moral philosophers are in almost universal agreement regarding
Some think it's an analytic truth (true by virtue of the meaning of "all right" and other deontic terms). Others think it's an empirical truth, based on naturalistic definitions of the ethical terms. Still others think it's a self-evident truth. And so on.
The universalizability principle U says (roughly) "If it's all right for you do A, then it's all right for anyone else in similar circumstances to do A." Moral philosophers are in almost universal agreement regarding
Some think the principle is very useful in ethical reasoning. Others think it's trivial and useless.
The universalizability principle U says (roughly) "If it's all right for you do A, then it's all right for anyone else in similar circumstances to do A." Moral philosophers are in almost universal agreement regarding
I once read all the discussions of U that I could find. I found 111 people accepting U, and no one explicitly rejecting it. (I didn't include people who reject formulations that I also reject.) This 111 to 0 consensus is impressive, since philosophers tend to disagree about everything.
U resembles the principles of logic: people agree on the principle and yet disagree on the theory behind it. This is the kind of agreement that I foresee formal ethical principles as having.
The universalizability principle U says (roughly) "If it's all right for you do A, then it's all right for anyone else in similar circumstances to do A." Moral philosophers are in almost universal agreement regarding
Would that this were so!