J. L. Mackie The Subjectivity Of Values

Mackie’s argument from queerness is founded upon a naturalistic account of the world. The main idea of the argument from queerness seems to imply that we should not believe in the existence of objective values because they would not fit in with a naturalistic world. He is convinced that there are no moral facts and properties, and we cannot possibly have moral knowledge. There are two parts in Mackie’s argument from queerness, one metaphysical and the other epistemological. The metaphysical component

Galen Strawson argues in his work, The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility, the theory that true moral responsibility is impossible. This theory is accurate whether determinism is true or false. Strawson describes this argument as the Basic Argument. He claims "nothing can be causa sui- nothing can be the cause of itself" (212). Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility.

The two can exist divergently, for the view of being morally skeptical and believing in normative theological voluntarism or believing in normative theological voluntarism and not being morally skeptical. The theory is consistent with either with the affirmation or with denial of theism and moral skepticism. Taking either positive or negative stand on metaethical theological voluntarism cannot prevent anyone from doing what is morally right. The principle is not for theist only, and or not for only moral non-skeptical, it is for all of us, let us utilizes it for the common good. It can be argued historically that moral concepts equal theological one.

Ayn Rand presents an argument against individual rights in her essay, Man’s Rights. She believes that these rights do not actually exist outside of the right to life and the right to property; or less specifically, the right to action. Many critics see flaws in her argument however, finding flaws in her reasoning. Rand attempts to argue that egoism and rights entail each other. Egoism being the theory that believes that selfishness is the foundation of morality.

In “A Refutation of Moral Relativism,” Peter Kreeft argues that there are no moral absolutes because of the different cultures. Kreeft presents the moral relativism argument in his first two premises, through modus tollens, that if moral absolutism was true, then all would agree and that not everyone agrees. The conclusion that follows is that moral absolutism is false. Although many cultures practice different moral values, it does not mean that there is no absolute morally correct value. Kreeft argues in the first premise that if moral absolutism was true, then all would agree.

Ruth Benedict, an anthropologist, argues that morality is relative and based on one's culture or society. What could be morally acceptable in one culture is not necessarily acceptable in another culture. She believes that “the most spectacular illustrations of the extent to which normality may be culturally defined are those cultures where an abnormality of our culture is the cornerstone” (134). James Rachels, a philosopher, argues that Benedict’s argument is fallible. The conclusion of her argument does not follow from the premises.

The main objection is an "eye for an eye", or Lex talionis, and I believe it fails to support equality retributivism and creates punishments that are morally unacceptable. There is no way that

He believes that negative freedom is not logically related to democracy or self-government. In a nutshell, negative freedom can be seen as ‘an absence of something’. Positive freedom, on the other hand, can be

The second reason for that is that the idea Peacemaking is a philosophy and it is not a viable criminological theory because it cannot be analyze and empirically tested. Martin (2001) opposes that the word ‘theory’ in peacemaking did not do this philosophy any justice in regard to descriptive and applied purposes. The issue with peacemaking as a theory is that the ideas of the peacemaking philosophy has it fundamental background to spiritual revolutions, connectedness, service and empathy for others, awareness, and peace are defined narrowly by academicians. Criminology has been publicized as an unbiased science, a means of accurately measuring crime and ways to deal with crime. Additionally, criminologists find it tremendously repulsive to hypothesize such philosophies as connectedness and spirituality.

Yet drawing parallels between the two positions is far from impossible, despite Sartre’s strong opposition to Kantian moral theory. Kant’s moral philosophy stands on the notion of good will, an intrinsic good which is perceived to be so without qualification, independent of any external factors. Thus, he dismisses other values that could be taken as good in themselves, such as happiness, honesty, courage, trust etc. as they have worth only under specific conditions, whereas in others they could be transposed into bad acts. For example, trust is necessary for one to be able to manipulate others, one must have courage to be able to