Are there objective values?
For this question, I have provided four thesis statements. I would like you to choose one of these thesis statements to defend.
As a matter of explaining the question:
First of all, what does it even mean to say that there are objective values? In the assigned lecture video,
I argued for two types of objective value:
- Type 1 Objective Value: A claim that an object of evaluation has an intrinsic value property that makes it good or bad.
- Type 2 Objective Value: A claim that a proposition “X is good” can be true even if nobody believes that it is true.
With each type of objective value there is a different type of subjective value.
- Type 1 Subjective Value: A claim that some type of subjective state – a desire, preference, sentiment – is required for something to have value.
- Type 2 Subjective Value: A claim that a proposition “X is good” can be true only insofar as people believe it is true and if they believe that it is false, then it is false.
To explain Type 2 Subjective Value, consider a proposition like, “It is legal to take a right turn on red on the corner of First Street and Main.” This type of statement can be true or false. However, all it takes for it to change from true to false is for people to change their minds. If the City Council votes to make it false, then it becomes false. Contrast this to “the Earth is round” or “Humans contribute to greenhouse gas concentrations.” These cannot be changed with a vote. They are Type 2 Objective statements. The question concerning value statements is: Are value statements Type 2 Objective or Type 2 Subjective?
In the chapter of the book I asked you to read, J.L. Mackie argues that there are no intrinsic prescriptive properties (Type 1 Objective Values). He also argues that moral claims are claims that some things have an intrinsic prescriptive property, from which he draws the conclusion that all moral claims are false.
We can write his argument like this:
- All moral claims are claims that the object of evaluation (e.g., rape, theft, murder) has an intrinsic property of ought-not-to-be-doneness.
- There is no such thing as an intrinsic property of ought-not-to-be-doneness.
- Therefore, all moral claims are false.
His defense of Premise 1 rests on facts about how we use moral terms. Our value claims only make sense as claims that something has an intrinsic prescriptive property.
In defense of Premise 2, Mackie gives us his Argument from Queerness and Argument from Relativity.
With this in mind, choose one of the four thesis statements provided in the discussion below and defend it. You only need to respond to one. If you respond to more than one, I will take your best answer.
Again, your answer must conform to the standard format.
- Part 1: (1 sentence) Your thesis – what it is you want to prove. (10 points).
- Part 2: (about 4 to 7 sentences) An argument in defense of your thesis. An argument provides evidence in support of the thesis – it does more than just assert or repeat the thesis. An argument is a set of premises that provide evidence for (reasons to believe) the the conclusion is true. (30 points)
- Part 3: (about 4 to 7 sentences) An objection what was written in Part 2. An objection to what was written in (2) involves giving reasons to believe that a premise presented in (2) is either false or that it is involved in an invalid inference (30 points).
- Part 4: (about 4 to 7 sentences) A response to the objection written in Part 3: This involves giving reasons to believe that a premise presented in (3) is either false or that it is involved in an invalid inference (30 points).
