Mackie's Arguments Against Ethical Objectivism
Ethical objectivism is the idea that all individuals are correct within their own ideologies, if and only if they justly believe them to be truthful. This idea only applies when the individual has not been exposed with external foundations that prove the inexactness of their claim. Mackie debated that the importance of our moral views were the foundations of the existence of objective moral values within ourselves, meaning that whenever we make a moral judgement we assume that there is an element that makes our moral sentence factual. Mackie also argues that at any time we make these moral statements we enter what is called the error theory, which is the thought that all moral proposals cannot be correct. Mackie determined that error theory was the only plausible metaethical model because it embraces the foundations and possibilities of moral values, while focusing on what morality truly is.
Mackie then makes two arguments against ethical …show more content…
Moral nihilism is a methaethical train of thought that states how nothing is essentially moral or immoral, as an example we could use “if "killing babies is wrong" is true then everybody has a reason to not kill babies. This includes the psychopath who takes great pleasure from killing babies, and is utterly miserable when he does not have their blood on his hands. But, surely, (if we assume that he will suffer no reprisals) this psychopath has every reason to kill babies, and no reason not to do so. All moral claims are thus false.” (Moral Skepticism-Moral Error Theory) This would be correct if this person has not been predisposed to any external established facts, his or her claim is true. Plus whenever we make any moral claims we are, according to the error theory,
Mackie then makes two arguments against ethical …show more content…
Moral nihilism is a methaethical train of thought that states how nothing is essentially moral or immoral, as an example we could use “if "killing babies is wrong" is true then everybody has a reason to not kill babies. This includes the psychopath who takes great pleasure from killing babies, and is utterly miserable when he does not have their blood on his hands. But, surely, (if we assume that he will suffer no reprisals) this psychopath has every reason to kill babies, and no reason not to do so. All moral claims are thus false.” (Moral Skepticism-Moral Error Theory) This would be correct if this person has not been predisposed to any external established facts, his or her claim is true. Plus whenever we make any moral claims we are, according to the error theory,