Why be moral? A retort to a response to a reply

Abstract

The latest in an exchange in this journal of arguments about moral inconsistency and amoralists, Richard Hull argues that pointing out moral inconsistency in the position of one who complains of bad treatment by others while inflicting such treatment is insufficient to establishing the case for being moral. The inconsistent moralist can opt for an interpretation of his or her language as spoken for its effect on others, not as an expression of genuinely held moral beliefs. More than a true charge of inconsistency is necessary to make the case for being moral.