Both Harman and Mackie give arguments that bring into question the existence of moral facts. Both Harman and Mackie approach the subject as moral skeptics. I will be using their arguments to argue against the existence of moral facts.
Introduction
Are there any moral facts? Are there good reasons to believe in the existence of moral facts?
To answer these two questions it is necessary to look at the views of the two groups of people who answer them positively - moral realists- and those who do not - moral skeptics. Moral Realists claim that there are moral facts. Moral realists will argue, that say a course of action is morally right or wrong is to show that there is an objective fact that the particular course of action is in fact right, or wrong. According to moral …show more content…
Harman uses the distinction between moral observation and scientific observation to show that there is a good reason to deny moral facts. Harman wonders if moral facts can be tested and confirmed the same way that scientific principles are. Harman does not believe so. Moral Error theory is characterized by the propositions that “all moral claims are false” and “we have reason to believe that all moral claims are false.” Mackie came up with the two arguments for moral error theory, the argument from relativity and the argument from queerness. The argument from relativity is when people from different societies disagree about different moral facts when in reality there are no objective facts for them to disagree about. The argument from queerness states that they are objective facts and also learning that these facts are there motivates you to do something. They have to have the quality of to be doneness. Error theory is any theory that attributes to people a systematic tendency to commit error over and over again. There might be an important social function by taking own preferences and objectifying them.
Introduction
Are there any moral facts? Are there good reasons to believe in the existence of moral facts?
To answer these two questions it is necessary to look at the views of the two groups of people who answer them positively - moral realists- and those who do not - moral skeptics. Moral Realists claim that there are moral facts. Moral realists will argue, that say a course of action is morally right or wrong is to show that there is an objective fact that the particular course of action is in fact right, or wrong. According to moral …show more content…
Harman uses the distinction between moral observation and scientific observation to show that there is a good reason to deny moral facts. Harman wonders if moral facts can be tested and confirmed the same way that scientific principles are. Harman does not believe so. Moral Error theory is characterized by the propositions that “all moral claims are false” and “we have reason to believe that all moral claims are false.” Mackie came up with the two arguments for moral error theory, the argument from relativity and the argument from queerness. The argument from relativity is when people from different societies disagree about different moral facts when in reality there are no objective facts for them to disagree about. The argument from queerness states that they are objective facts and also learning that these facts are there motivates you to do something. They have to have the quality of to be doneness. Error theory is any theory that attributes to people a systematic tendency to commit error over and over again. There might be an important social function by taking own preferences and objectifying them.