In the past 25 years or so, the issue of ethical universalizability has
figured prominently in theoretical as well as practical ethics. The
term, 'universaliz- ability' used in connection with ethical
considerations, was apparently first introduced in the mid-1950s by R.
M. Hare to refer to what he characterized as a logical thesis about
certain sorts of evaluative sentences (Hare, 1955). The term has since
been used to cover a broad variety of ethical considerations including
those associated with the ideas of impartiality, consistency, justice,
equality, and reversibility as well as those raised in the familar
questions: 'What if everyone did that?' and 'How would you like it if
someone did that to you? But this recent effloresence of the use of the
term 'universalizability' is something that has deep historical roots,
and has been central in various forms to the thinking about morality of
some of the greatest and most influential philosophers in the western
tradition. While the term is relatively new, the ideas it is now used to
express have a long history. Most of these ideas and questions have been
or can be formulated into a principle to be discussed, criticized, or
defended. As we discuss these ideas below this prin- ciple will be
stated on a separate numbered line. The concepts of justice and equality
were closely linked in Greek thought. These connections between these
two concepts are apparent even in two authors who were hostile to the
connection, Plato and Aristotle.