Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong

Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong

4.0 2
by J. L. MacKie
     
 

View All Available Formats & Editions

Product Details

ISBN-13:
9780140135589
Publisher:
Penguin Group (USA) Incorporated
Publication date:
05/28/1991
Pages:
256
Sales rank:
565,934
Product dimensions:
5.12(w) x 7.74(h) x 0.62(d)

Meet the Author

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Write a Review

and post it to your social network

     

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews >

Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong 4 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 2 reviews.
A_Sloan More than 1 year ago
Father of Error Theory This book is the father of all error theory books. He originates some of the central critiques of moral thought and discourse that guys like Richard Garner rely on (see also: Beyond Morality). They think there is something bizarre about morality's commitment to categorical reasons (things that you ought or ought not to do regardless of what your desires happen to be). They think moral properties are queer because he says that don't fit into a naturalistic worldview and because they are thought to supervene on non-moral properties (i.e. the moral properties "fix" the moral facts... so the non-moral fact of kicking a puppy is always accompanied by the property of wrongness). As you may notice, the theory presented in this book does not agree with me. Error theory argues that morality is systemically erroneous... what do we do with moral thought and discourse then? If Mackie thinks supervenient relationships are flawed, exactly how do ordinary natural facts determine the moral facts? He argues for conservationism (rather than eliminativism) because he recognizes the instrinsic vlue of morality, although I don't see that working. I agree more with the ideas of David Boonin, David Enoch, and Michael Huemer.
Guest More than 1 year ago
j.l. Mackie, a top notch athiest in today day and age of secular humanism has most assuredly thought he has secured his position down tightly. Yet the fact that the simplest argumentation against athiesm has not been refuted is still on my mind. How can somebody make the claim that there is no God, when they do not have absolute knowledge? They are unable to. But for those interested in the 'best' stand for Athiesm i do recommend this book, if you have the time.