{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.037037037037037035, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010582010582010581, 'mean_word_length': 4.69172932330827, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Pyrrhic Defence of Moral Autonomy

In his recent papers, 'Murder and Sodomy' {Philosophy, July 1976) and 'Morally Significant Theses' {Open Mind, October 1976), Professor P. T. Geach attacks once more a version of the doctrine of moral autonomy which he attributes to Professor R. M. Hare. My main purpose in this paper is to sketch a version of that doctrine which is, I claim, immune from Geach's criticisms, and which should satisfy Hare's requirements, but I shall begin by briefly arguing ad hominem that Geach's examples both in these papers and elsewhere do not constitute counter-examples to Hare's thesis, and shall conclude that my version of that thesis is trivial and that it is far from obvious that anything more meaty could be established.