The error theory is defined as a view, wherein it considers all the ethical statements to be propositions. However, it is said that, all these propositions can either be true or it can be false. So, it signifies that, we might make an error while making a moral statement on anything. The false statements can be made either due to presupposition failure or due to global falsity.
Presupposition failure does not consider all the statements to be explicitly false, but does not even consider true, since there are certain assumptions, which need to be corrected. It is like we need to ensure the validity of the statements (Mackie 31-47). Consider an example, of the aliens that are found on the moon and are wearing purple hats. This statement can be considered as a logical proposition, but the statement itself turns out to be wrong, since there are no aliens on the moon.
On the other hand, global falsity considers all of the ethical statements to be false. Amidst of all these statements, John Mackie argued for the error theory. However, there were certain queries and arguments for it, but in the following years, several theorists concluded that, Mackie was more or less correct in his argument. However, it is still not proven that, Mackie's argument was correct or was a mistake. I would thereby, like to provide my discussions, which would debunk the Mackie's Error Theory. I used to believe the Error Theory somewhat in the past, but now I have got a shift in it. The thesis of this paper shall focus upon Mackie's Argument on the Error Theory, and will proceed to my arguments that will debunk Mackie's Arguments.
Let us first of all consider the Mackie's argument for the error theory. There are two stages in it, and he begins with associating the concept of moral value with objectivity. His arguments are targeted to the people who are engaged in an antecedent manner with ordinary moral thought. He first tries to fixes about their thinking and what they talk about, and then mentions that there could not be anything like that. Thus, we can observe an element of internal critique associated with the concepts of morality.
So, in Sidgwickian terms, if happiness has the feature of ending something, which again is described by some reason, Mackie argues to it by saying that, happiness having the feature of ending is quite strange. Instead, it possesses the epistemological and metaphysical characteristics (Wright 50). Here, at this juncture, we cannot determine, however what Mackie is trying to say, but still we can interpret some of the conclusions.
In this discussion, Mackie tries to prove that, happiness is having the characteristic of ending something. Now, looking from our perspective, we do desire happiness at one or the other moments. However, to make it true for all the people, we need a descriptive psychological fact that needs to support this characteristic of happiness. Mackie seems to be clueless at identifying this fact, which can support to his arguments.
Moving forward to Mackie's arguments, we find that, he focuses upon the concept of moral value. He has framed it in the rationalist terms. However, when other rationalists try to analyze the concept of moral value, they come out with the analysis of moral obligation. So, we need to question to the challenges that re-emerge from Mackie's arguments. However, if these challenges are correct, it would mean that, Mackie was correct in describing happiness with the epistemological and metaphysical characteristics.
Mackie further mentions that, people who have accepted moral subjectivism are also supporting the theories of moral skepticism. Moral subjectivism is the philosophy, wherein the feelings and thoughts of a speaker would be equivalent to his moral judgments. In addition, they have not included any objective values within it. However, if there are no moral values that are not objective in nature, they have to be subjective in nature in a broad sense.
In today's philosophy, it is difficult to interpret the correct meanings of the words and sentences of the theorists. There are no conceptual or factual analysis carried out regarding the perception of the speakers and the theorists. Thus, error could result as we fail to understand the difference between the conceptual and factual analysis, and their interpretations. So, if we can make errors in identifying the interpretations, we are definitely going to make mistakes in identifying the moral philosophies (Williams 61-67). Hence, we can observe greater complications with more interpretations in the field of moral ethics.
Moving further, we observe that there are certain theorists that argue that, there is no genuine problem found in the objectivity of the values. So, if an individual does wrong, the subjectivist would consider it as an attitude of disapproval. On the other hand, the objectivist would consider it as a moral intuition. Thus, these are just the names for the same thing, and hence, we cannot find any major problem associated with this issue. So, suppose, if a person commits something, one individual would turn it right, and other would turn it wrong. At this juncture, the objectivist would comment that, they are just contradicting to each other. But, as a result, we cannot find major differences between the original concepts of subjectivism and objectivism. The same analysis would be carried out by objectivist and he would also be commenting the same thing.
Thus, the first order judgment will not be impacted by the second order view and vice versa. The only thing that matters, is the backing up of the fact in subjectivity, which we shall find missing in case of objectivity. There is yet one more term defined by Mackie, which is descriptivism, which is a philosophy associated with the meanings of the ethical terminologies. However, the interpretations with this doctrine is an altogether different case than what we are comparing the subjectivity and objectivity (Smith 75-106).
There is an instrumental approach defined, which succeeds in showing that there is a gap the arguments provided by Mackie. On the other hand, Mackie mentioned that, the desires can only be described through the existence of Moorean non-natural qualities. The instrumental approach denies the existence of such qualities. Instead, it supports the argument that, we just need the empirical fact to make our arguments true on what is morally correct and what is morally wrong. We are landing into the error theory, only because we are morally obliged to do. Now, evaluating the standard of ethics, and deciding on whether objective values or subjective values associated with it are morally correct or not, we need to carefully analyze the interpretation. Judging the performance on the basis of subjectivity and objectivity will lead to different results. And, again, it will depend more upon the conceptualization and thinking of the individual.
Ethics define the moral values associated with the working activities, and one needs to follow it. However, one is not sure whether the things they are doing are correct from the subjectivism perspective or objectivism perspective (Mackie 57-59).
There have been several approaches defined to identify which approach is correct and which is wrong. But, since this is the error theory, it will go against all the assumptions of different approaches. It directly conflicts with our common sense, and hence, we need very solid support to prove it either correct or wrong. We cannot casually pass it over to something else.
There have been issues regarding the status of moral values. Some of the approaches such as of the constitutivist approach can offer most promising way to respond to the arguments of the error theory put forward by Mackie. So, if we are granting Mackie that he is right in his arguments, we need to have supporting facts that will prove it correct. There is no major metaphysical gap, which we have been identifying through all this discussion. Hence, we always cannot convince everyone on the claims made on the basis of truth (Mackie 91).
Ethics are defined in several ways and through several means. But, they have different interpretations, every time the situation gets changed. Hence, it is important for us to hold the position of Mackie and support his claim, although, there are certain gaps in it. He is not able to explain it with either subjective or objective facts, and hence, we need to accept it under the given conditions. Ethics can be shaped in the way the individual can think of it; but, whatsoever may be the case or doctrine, we should apply the basic concepts so as to prove it either correct or wrong.
References
Smith, M. "Is that all there is?" The Journal of Ethics 10 (2006): 75-106.
Williams, B. Internal and External reasons. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1981. Print.
Wright, C. Truth and objectivity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. Print.
Mackie, J.L. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. Print.
