Mackie's Hypothetical And Categorical Imperatives
J. L. Mackie claims that there are no objective values in the world that is to say that there are no such values that have been by default built into the structure of the universe. When Mackie claims that there are no objective values, he clarifies that his theory is not a first-order form of subjectivism or skepticism, but a second-order one. This means that his position is not one of a moral skeptic who would argue that we ought to reject all conventional moral judgments. According to Mackie, there are two things that are required for values to be objective:
1. These values should have intrinsic reason-giving power.
2. They should be able to unconditionally motivate us to act.
Thus to say that there are no objective values there should be no values that have intrinsic-reason giving power or motivate us unconditionally to act in a certain manner. For example an ethical statement like, “Love thy neighbor”, has neither an intrinsic-reason giving power, nor motivates us unconditionally to really love our neighbors. Here, in order to clarify, Mackie uses Immanuel Kant’s idea of hypothetical and categorical imperatives. …show more content…
Hypothetical imperatives tell us what to do in order to achieve a particular goal, for example, “If you want to score well in a test, study hard” or “If you don’t want to go to prison, then don’t break the law”. Categorical imperatives, on the other hand, tell us what to do irrespective of our desire to achieve certain goals. For example, “Don’t kill” or “Don’t steal” are categorical imperatives that tell us to not kill or steal, regardless of whether we want to avoid the negative consequences of that action or not. Mackie denies that categorical imperatives have any power as they do not motivate us unconditionally to act in a certain manner and therefor there are no objective moral values since hypothetical imperatives already vary from person to
1. These values should have intrinsic reason-giving power.
2. They should be able to unconditionally motivate us to act.
Thus to say that there are no objective values there should be no values that have intrinsic-reason giving power or motivate us unconditionally to act in a certain manner. For example an ethical statement like, “Love thy neighbor”, has neither an intrinsic-reason giving power, nor motivates us unconditionally to really love our neighbors. Here, in order to clarify, Mackie uses Immanuel Kant’s idea of hypothetical and categorical imperatives. …show more content…
Hypothetical imperatives tell us what to do in order to achieve a particular goal, for example, “If you want to score well in a test, study hard” or “If you don’t want to go to prison, then don’t break the law”. Categorical imperatives, on the other hand, tell us what to do irrespective of our desire to achieve certain goals. For example, “Don’t kill” or “Don’t steal” are categorical imperatives that tell us to not kill or steal, regardless of whether we want to avoid the negative consequences of that action or not. Mackie denies that categorical imperatives have any power as they do not motivate us unconditionally to act in a certain manner and therefor there are no objective moral values since hypothetical imperatives already vary from person to