Among those defended by Abzug were individuals charged in Senator Joseph McCarthy's anticommunist crusade.
Eudaimonist positions, such as those defended in the broadly Aristotelian tradition, reject The Hierarchy Thesis.
Moreover, both reject monistic accounts of the moral domain, such as those defended by Kantians and consequentialists, according to which there is one master ethical principle from which all others are derived.
What exactly Moore meant by these claims is unclear, but it's at least possible to read them as suggesting a non-metaphysical moral realism like those defended more recently by Scanlon and Parfit.
This point is urged in Friedman (1992a), in opposition, especially, to views like those defended by Buchdahl (1969) and Allison (1983)—according to which causal relations between individual events, for Kant, do not necessarily involve causal laws at all.
(Nor does Dedekind's position coincide with several other forms of structuralism prominent in contemporary philosophy of mathematics, e.g., those defended by Geoffrey Hellman, Michael Resnik, and Stewart Shapiro; cf. Reck 2003a).
Unfortunately, not much has changed in the intervening decades, except to add non-communist criminal regimes like Iran's to the roster of those defended by Western intellectuals and their political allies on the left.
