Objectivity Of Morals, By J. L. Mackey And John Stuart Mill

Jadyn Hysack

Professor Wisnewski

Phil 1200: Ethics

21 March 2023

The Objectivity of Morals

Morality in itself can be a tough concept to grasp, and J.L. Mackey and John Stuart Mill are two figures in philosophy that contributed to a few ideas about morality. They brought forth ideas about objective morality, error theory, and utilitarianism.

J.L Mackey claims that there is no relativity or meaning to objective morality and concludes that it does not exist in the world. By denying that there is any objective morality, Mackey contributes his ideas to an Error Theory. An Error Theory is a theory in which most people believe that any claims relative to morality to be true are to be considered wrong. Mackey understood that this may be a tough

4). To support his claims, he uses what he calls the “argument of relativity” and the “argument of queerness”. In his “argument of relativity”, Mackey alleges that morals are not clear-cut or obvious choices and do vary throughout cultures and time periods, making them not objective. He also admits, "Disagreement about moral codes seems to reflect people’s adherence to and participation in different ways of life.” One major concept from this idea is that people don’t often do things because they approve of something, but instead approve of something because they do it (Mackey, pg. 4). This statement then leads to the conclusion that moral codes are based on a way of life rather than the fact of the matter (Mackey, pg. 5). The argument of queerness consists of two aspects, the metaphysical and the epistemologically. Metaphysical consists of the metaphysics and epistemological deals with the theory of knowledge and understanding and the difference between justified belief and opinion (Oxford English Dictionary). For both to state that there are objective values, they would be considered

The “Greatest Happiness Principle” decides what is to be considered right and wrong based on whether the action/idea brings happiness or pain. He defines happiness as a measure of pleasure and unhappiness and pain as interchangeable ideas (Mill, pg. 10). He believes that there should be 2 scales separating the higher pleasures from the lower pleasures, and those two scales should be based on quantitative and qualitative, respectively. Mill states that for pleasure to be considered a higher pleasure it must be adequately chosen over another pleasure even if it brings some kind of discomfort. What is meant by adequately is that both of the pleasures have been experienced and the one that is chosen provides some discomforts. He also states that the choice of one pleasure over another by most or all is chosen with no moral obligation by choosing it (Mill, pg. 11). With this Principle, he is concluding that morals can be objective, and he also uses the ideas of Utilitarianism to support that as well. Utilitarianism is the idea that the right thing to do is what benefits the majority, the more quantitative option. In Mill's piece on Utilitarianism, he states “According to the Greatest Happiness Principle, as above explained, the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that