1.Mackie’s claim is that there are no objective moral facts. A moral fact is objective just in case its being true does not depend on what anyone happens to think or feel about it. The argument from disagreements state as following. The degree of disagreement in ethics is much greater than that found in science. The best explanation for premise one is that science studies something objectively true about the world, while ethics comprises a set of judgments that reflect non-objective opinions. The view that best explains the available evidence is the view that is most likely true. So, it is most likely true that ethics comprises a set of judgments that reflect non-objective opinion. For example, some people think it is okay for physicians to assist the patient to end his or her own life while others think it is morally wrong to legalize physicians’ assistance to suicide. Abortion is another hot topic that rises disagreements among people. Pro-life thinks that fetus counts as a human being; thus, killing fetus is like killing a human being.On the other hand, pro-choice thinks that the decision whether to abort the child or not is on the mother’s hand. These disagreements all rises from ethical problems; both sidesof the arguments are all based on personal opinions. They do not have any objective values; they are totally subjective to everyone. The objection towards Mackie’s argument is that there isn’t significant disagreement about objective morality. It states that the objective aspects of morality are the basic moral principles. They are widely accepted. Disagreements over specific moral principles is the result of applying basic principles to different circumstances, social environments, preferences, etc.