Error Theory: Mackie What is Mackie's error theory of morality? Be sure to explicitly discuss the conceptual and metaphysical claims in the argument. An error theory about a particular area of discourse is the claim that the positive, atomic sentences of that discourse are systematically and uniformly false. This is understood by these claims: the conceptual and metaphysical claims. First, Mackie makes a claim about what we are trying to talk about when we make moral judgements. The conceptual claim states that the truth of moral claims requires the existence of objectively prescriptive facts. Next, Mackie gives a claim about the world. The metaphysical claim states that there are no objectively prescriptive facts. What is Mackie’s argument from moral variation/disagreement? The Argument from Relativity (often more perspicaciously referred to as “the Argument from Disagreement”) begins with an empirical observation: that there is an enormous amount of variation in moral views, and that moral disagreements are often characterized by an unusual degree of intractability. Mackie argues that the best explanation of these phenomena is that moral judgments “reflect adherence to and participation in different ways of life”. What are the arguments from queerness? Note there is a metaphysical aspect and an epistemic aspect. What is the companions in guilt objection to the argument from queerness? The moral queerness argument: to say that moral facts or properties are queer in Mackie’s sense is to say that there is something unacceptably strange about morality that
distinguishes it from everything else. We can distinguish between metaphysical and epistemological arguments from moral queerness. The response to Mackie’s epistemological argument from queerness is that the rejection intuition overgeneralizes. This is called the companions in guilt objection. The objection is that intuition plays an important role in other forms of knowledge as well, such as mathematical knowledge. Since mathematical knowledge is perfectly acceptable, to the extent that mathematics relies on intuition, it vindicates other domains (such as morality) that also rely on intuition. What is Sharon Street's Evolutionary Debunking argument? Sharon Street’s Evolutionary Debunking argument concludes that either moral truths depend on our propensities to judge, or we have no reason to think our moral beliefs are accurate. The Absurd: Camus and Nagel and Wolf What is the absurd according to Nagel? The absurd, according to Nagel, is the thought that many are persuaded that their lives are meaningless or absurd by reflecting on the fact that nothing they will ever do will matter in a million years. Explain this in terms of the subjective (internal) and the objective (external) points of view. How do Nagel and Wolf disagree on the relationship between the subjective and objective points of view?
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 9 pages?