Ethics is invented, not encountered—why the philosophy of JL Mackie remains essential reading

Born 100 years ago this month, we still have much to learn from the thinker’s work

by James Garvey / August 4, 2017 / Leave a comment

“There are no objective values.” Not one to waste opening lines, that’s the startling first sentence of J L Mackie’s Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. (He didn’t mince words in subtitles either.) An Oxford philosopher, born in Australia 100 years ago this month, his thoughts about metaphysics, logic, and causation still get a hearing in classrooms and conference halls. But what really grabs those inside and outside the ivory tower are his arguments for atheism and scepticism about ethics. His work, worth returning to as the anniversary approaches, is filled with arguments and counter-arguments, so brace yourself for a few premises and conclusions.

In The Miracle of Theism, published posthumously in 1983, Mackie argued that “the question whether there is or is not a god can and should be discussed rationally and reasonably… it can yield definite results.” The results, for Mackie, make a case for atheism. His target was not some ill-defined New Age divinity, but the all-knowing, powerful, perfectly good, omnipresent, eternal creator at the centre of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Despite centuries of trying, Mackie argues, philosophers and theologians haven’t managed a persuasive proof of the existence of God.

YOU'VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
But don't worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we'll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we'll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

DEBUG messsage: regular

Listen: Headspace #34—Fifty Shades of Atheism

Prospect Team / May 23, 2018

In Prospect's new podcast Sameer Rahim talks to philosopher John Gray about the varieties...

The Prospect podcast #46—sci-fi currencies and the philosophy of money

Prospect Team / August 15, 2018

What if your money could think for itself? Eric Lonergan joined the Prospect team to...

Comments

SelfishWizard
August 8, 2017 at 02:12
JL Mackie was ahead of his time and his insights remain compelling today. All moral values are subjective. There is no objective morality. The word values implies a being that holds those values making the concept inherently subjective. Given the subjectivity of moral values the very meaning of morality is of a concept that attempts to make objective something that is inherently subjective. People can never convince each other in political discussions because they have different values. Subjective values are impervious to reason since they function as base assumptions. Recognizing this will save as all a lot of breath arguing with each other. We can simply recognize we have different values and go on from there.
Mark
August 17, 2017 at 14:12
"On the objective view, being good is a property a person or an action might really have. Slavery, itself, is evil. " Slavery is not a property a person has or an action. It is a multifaceted combination of events and experiences. It is trivial to say that morality cannot exist outside of subjective experience. Something can still be true while being a part of subjective experience. Trying to get to truth by removing subjectivity is pure scientism.