Abstract

There is no logical bar to anybody becoming a fanatic, in Hare’s conception, because of the strict bifurcation which his logic of moral concepts imposes between the morality of interests and the morality of ideals. In the former sphere, the answer to the question "What ought I to do?" is guided by the logic of the term "ought." By its universal prescriptivism, what I ought to do is an action which exemplifies a maxim of action which similarly binds anyone in relevantly similar circumstances. In the "idealist" sphere, what I ought to do in any circumstances is what accords with my ideal. In the "utilitarian" sphere, it is the universalizability requirement which distinguishes moral from non-moral acts and affords this same distinction regarding the interests and desires which spawn the acts. It performs this function because interests and desires are not intrinsically universalizable. But universalizability does not afford a moral criterion in the idealist sphere because ideals are inherently universalizable. The idealist is fully prepared to universalize his ideal and the behavior it prescribes in various circumstances. Because this is so, universalizability does not here function as a moral criterion, and the fanatic cannot be judged morally. It is here that "fortunate contingent facts" are adduced by Hare to take the place of moral arguments.