• First order view is about the content of morality (e.g. murder is wrong, rape is wrong, stealing is wrong, helping old ladies cross the street is good, etc.) while the second order view is that moral claims are objectively true or false. Mackie’s argument is targeting the second order view. His thesis is, “There are no objective values.”
• Mackie claims that the first order and second order views are completely independent, not just distinct from each other. As stated in class, even if one rejects the second order view, they are still entitled to have first order views. The example given in class was of wine being better than beer. However, Mackie doesn’t think that that moral claims are completely arbitrary. Since Mackie thinks that the first and second order views are completely independent, his moral skepticism is different from some other moral skepticism. Mackie wrote that his moral skepticism is a negative doctrine. It is not about what is (a positive doctrine) it is about what there is
•…show more content… Mackie wrote, “What I have called moral skepticism is an ontological thesis, not linguistic or conceptual one. It is not, like the other doctrines often called moral subjectivism, a view about the meanings of morals.” (p541). Mackie also had objections to both the non-cognitivism view and descriptivism view (naturalism). Naturalism omits the authority of ethics by excluding the categorical aspect. He stated that we are more inclined to think ethics has more to do with knowledge than with decisions allowed by non-cognitivism. He wrote that moral skepticism must take the form of an error theory. Even though believing in objective values is built into the typical moral language and thought, he still holds that this deeply rooted belief is false. He was mainly concerned with the second order view; his thesis directly argued against traditional views of the first order
