Comparing and Contrasting the Views of G. E. Moore and J. L. Mackie on Moral Realism and Anti-Realism
In the field of moral philosophy, the views of G. E. Moore and J. L. Mackie have played a significant role in shaping the discourse on moral realism and anti-realism. Both philosophers have presented contrasting perspectives on these topics, offering valuable insights into the nature of moral judgments. Through their works, Moore in “Principia Ethica” and Mackie in “Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong,” they explore the distinctions between moral realism and anti-realism, as well as the dichotomy between moral cognitivism and non-cognitivism.
Moral Realism vs. Anti-Realism
Moral realism posits that there are objective moral facts that exist independently of human beliefs or attitudes. According to Moore, moral properties such as goodness are non-natural properties that cannot be reduced to any naturalistic or empirical explanations. He argues that these moral properties are self-evident, irreducible, and known through intuition.
On the other hand, Mackie presents an anti-realist perspective in which he argues against the existence of objective moral values and facts. He contends that moral properties are subjective projections of human desires and attitudes onto the world. For Mackie, moral judgments are merely expressions of subjective preferences or emotions, lacking any objective foundation.
Moral Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism
Moral cognitivism refers to the view that moral judgments can be true or false and that they express beliefs about the world. Moore aligns himself with moral cognitivism by asserting that moral propositions are capable of being objectively true or false. He argues that moral judgments are factual statements about the intrinsic value of objects or actions.
In contrast, Mackie represents a non-cognitivist position. He argues that moral judgments do not express beliefs but rather convey emotional responses or prescriptions for action. According to Mackie, moral statements are not truth-apt; they do not correspond to objective facts but instead express personal preferences or attitudes.
Evaluating the Views
While Moore and Mackie present opposing views, there are areas of overlap in their arguments. Both philosophers acknowledge the role of subjectivity in moral judgments, with Moore recognizing that individuals’ intuition plays a crucial role in discerning moral properties. Similarly, Mackie acknowledges that personal preferences and emotions influence moral judgments.
However, Moore’s perspective on moral realism is grounded in the belief in objective moral values, whereas Mackie’s anti-realist stance rejects the existence of such values. Moore’s emphasis on intuition as a means of accessing moral truths contrasts with Mackie’s skeptical position, which denies any possibility of objective moral truths.
In terms of moral cognitivism and non-cognitivism, Moore’s cognitivist approach aligns with traditional notions of morality as a domain of truth and knowledge. Mackie’s non-cognitivist stance challenges this traditional view by asserting that moral judgments are expressions of subjective emotions.
Conclusion
G. E. Moore and J. L. Mackie have contributed significantly to the ongoing debate surrounding moral realism and anti-realism, as well as moral cognitivism and non-cognitivism. While Moore defends the existence of objective moral values rooted in intuition, Mackie rejects their existence and views morality as a subjective projection onto the world. Similarly, Moore supports moral cognitivism, whereas Mackie advocates for non-cognitivism.
Both philosophers’ views provide valuable insights into the complexities of moral philosophy and challenge us to critically examine our assumptions about the nature of morality. By understanding their contrasting perspectives, we can develop a more nuanced understanding of the philosophical foundations underlying our ethical beliefs and judgments.
Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay 
