In Hare's two-debter parable, A owes money to B, B owes money to C, and the cases are otherwise identical. The law lets creditors put their debtors into prison. So if B says "I ought to put A in prison for debt," then he has to hold "C ought to put me in prison for debt."
A problem with this parable is that
In Hare's two-debter parable, A owes money to B, B owes money to C, and the cases are otherwise identical. The law lets creditors put their debtors into prison. So if B says "I ought to put A in prison for debt," then he has to hold "C ought to put me in prison for debt."
A problem with this parable is that
But we can always IMAGINE a reversed situation -- even if life doesn't provide us with one. This moves us to the one-debtor parable.
But this isn't the only problem.
In Hare's two-debter parable, A owes money to B, B owes money to C, and the cases are otherwise identical. The law lets creditors put their debtors into prison. So if B says "I ought to put A in prison for debt," then he has to hold "C ought to put me in prison for debt."
A problem with this parable is that
Hare's argument appeals to consistency, not to fear. This comes through more clearly in the one-debtor parable.
But this isn't the only problem.
In Hare's two-debter parable, A owes money to B, B owes money to C, and the cases are otherwise identical. The law lets creditors put their debtors into prison. So if B says "I ought to put A in prison for debt," then he has to hold "C ought to put me in prison for debt."
A problem with this parable is that
For these reasons, Hare switches to the one-debtor parable. Here, being tempted to put A in prision for debt, you IMAGINE being in A's exact place. You ask how you desire that you be treated in this situation.