Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T12:50:18.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Geach on Murder and Sodomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2009

R. M. Hare
R. M. Hare
Affiliation:
Corpus Christi College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy , Volume 52 , Issue 202 , October 1977 , pp. 467 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Open Mind No. 4 (09 1976), 20–26.Google Scholar

2 Philosophy, this issue, 455–466.Google Scholar

3 Open Mind (1976), 5Google Scholar; Logic Matters (Oxford, 1972), 33 f.Google Scholar

4 The Language of Morals (LM), 168f.Google Scholar; Freedom and Reason (FR), 26f.Google Scholar

5 FR, 26f.Google Scholar; LM, 2f.Google Scholar

6 Analysis 18 (1957/8), 51; Logic Matters, 272.Google Scholar The relevant paragraph is unaltered in the reprint, but is retracted on p. 281.

7 Open Mind (1976), 5.Google Scholar

8 Ibid.

9 LM, 28, 30f.Google Scholar

10 Philosophy 52 (1977), 462Google Scholar

11 Philosophy 51 (1976), 347f.Google Scholar

12 ‘Geach: Good and Evil’, Analysis 17 (1956/1957)Google Scholar, reprinted in Theories of Ethics, ed. Foot, P. (Oxford, 1967)Google Scholar and in my Essays on the Moral Concepts (London, 1972)Google Scholar; ‘The Promising Game’, Rev. Int. de Ph. 70 (1964)Google Scholar, reprinted in Theories of Ethics, ed. P. Foot and in The Is-Ought Question, ed. Hudson, W. D. (London, 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Wanting: Some Pitfalls’, in Agent, Action and Reason, ed. Binkley, R. et al. (Toronto, 1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in my Practical Inferences (London, 1971)Google Scholar; see also LM, 43f.Google Scholar

13 Philosophy 41 (1966), 75.Google Scholar

14 Philosophy 51 (1976), 346Google Scholar; see LM, 34.Google Scholar

15 Philosophy 52 (1977), 462ff.Google Scholar

16 FR, 32.Google Scholar

17 Philosophy 51 (1976), 347Google Scholar

18 Though a rationalist, I do not subscribe to all the views of those criticized under that name by Professor Alan Gewirth in his Lindley Lecture for 1972 (reprinted in Freedom and Morality, ed. Bricke, J. (Lawrence, Kansas, 1976), 113).Google Scholar I wish to take this opportunity of apologizing to Professor Gewirth for wrongly accusing him, in my own lecture in the same volume (p. 192), of confusing my views with those of a subjectivist who thinks that an act can be shown to be not morally right by showing that it is not acceptable to its agent when he is its recipient. He has pointed out to me that I had no cause, beyond a misreading of his lecture, to take him as including me among the objects of his criticism in that passage.