The objectivity of moral values has been questioned greatly through out time. So, do objective morals and values really exist? Or are we so enamored with the idea that there is a standard universal code to follow for guidance. In his piece “The Subjectivity of Values” J.L Mackie states that, “There are no objective values.”(Landau175) The moral subjectivists uphold the idea that moral claims are only true, if they are objectively true. But what makes these true? Consequently what establishes their validity is the fact that they rely on subjective states of a person; states of desire, preference, or dislike. As a moral subjectivist Mackie gives two arguments for his point of view: the argument of relativity and the argument of queerness.
The argument of relativity is quite straight forward “…it claims that …show more content…
This cannot be the other way around for example a difference in moral concepts is the practice of monogamy. After it is well established that the behavior is appropriate it would become really hard to challenge the norm if that is approved. If we accept this then instead of moral values being objective we accept them as a consequence of a social framework. Mackie’s attack on objective moral values ends rapidly. In some cases cultures adopt a moral code that violates most of the ideas of morality. What happens then? Mackie’s argument relies solemnly on the intrinsic rightness of the action. How about slavery, women’s rights’ there was evolution and disagreement they always geared toward the universal rules. That is because people judge some things as right or wrong not because of their ideals but rather on intuition or common moral sense. (177) This demonstrates that cultures’ moral judgment is found at many times to be wrong allowing for moral progress and the acceptance that morality does have objectively true
The argument of relativity is quite straight forward “…it claims that …show more content…
This cannot be the other way around for example a difference in moral concepts is the practice of monogamy. After it is well established that the behavior is appropriate it would become really hard to challenge the norm if that is approved. If we accept this then instead of moral values being objective we accept them as a consequence of a social framework. Mackie’s attack on objective moral values ends rapidly. In some cases cultures adopt a moral code that violates most of the ideas of morality. What happens then? Mackie’s argument relies solemnly on the intrinsic rightness of the action. How about slavery, women’s rights’ there was evolution and disagreement they always geared toward the universal rules. That is because people judge some things as right or wrong not because of their ideals but rather on intuition or common moral sense. (177) This demonstrates that cultures’ moral judgment is found at many times to be wrong allowing for moral progress and the acceptance that morality does have objectively true