Talk:J. L. Mackie/Archive 1

Comments

Um, sorry i don't have an account i was just looking at this and the bit says that he is a moral skeptic not moral nihlist, yet it is not distinguished what the difference is, the moral skepticism page implies they are the same , and the moral nihlist page again says the two are different but doesn't say why or go into detail. I don't know enough on the issue to alter this myself.

The page moral skepticism has been edited; it no longer conflates nihilism and skepticism. Though Mackie was a skeptic, and called himself a skeptic, he was also a nihilist.Unisonus 02:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does the page still say "In meta-ethics, he took the position of moral skepticism (to be distinguished from moral nihilism)" if Mackie was a nihilist? There must be a reason for this being in the article.

• I am not happy with this Wikipedia entry on "John Leslie Mackie".

I am convinced that the original publisher had not so much of an idea of the real
meaning of the philosophy of John Leslie Mackie. If the original writer and the
public agrees, I would like to transform this Wikipedia entry to a more worthwhile
one. (This would only take me 51 weeks to complete.)
Hans Rosenthal
(hans.rosenthal at t-online.de -- replace " at " by "@")

Its a free Wiki. Everyone is invited to contribute his knowledge, so go on! -- 62.224.10.142 09:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the way: If user

62.224.10.142

believes in God, he has to _immediately say so_ !

Otherwise, he would disqualify himself from being an honest contributor or moderator for this page.

(I am an atheist, so do frankly deny the existence of God.)

---

Would you please change the main entry title for

"J. L. Mackie" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._L._Mackie

to

"John Leslie Mackie" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Leslie_Mackie

within the Wikipedia ?

Thank you.

Hans Rosenthal

PS: If you do not, I will allow myself to do so later ;)

---

Dear Penelope,

"His daughter Dr Penelope Mackie was a lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Birmingham from 1994 to 2004. She is now at the University of Nottingham"

Have you noticed that your father was one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century ?

Now, I call him one of the most brilliant philosophers of all the time that passed...

Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

Is it not ridiculous that when I am searching for the term "John Leslie Mackie" within the wikipedia, I will be (Redirected from John Leslie Mackie) to the article (the term, the search string) "J. L. Mackie" ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (15012006)

---

Sure, his name was, in fact, "John Leslie Mackie." However, he published everything under "J.L. Mackie" and most people are likely to know him only by that name. I actually had an ethics professor who didn't know what the J.L. stood for! While that may be uncalled for, it remains a fact that the term "J.L. Mackie" makes it easier to search for the Mackie article. Everyone who knows "John Leslie" also knows "J.L." but not the other way around.

Everyone knows "Jesus", but few als know him as "INRI", but always the other way around. So what did you want to say: That "J. L. Mackie" could or should serve as an encyclopedic entry ? Because those who already know him will have no problems to find this entry ? Ahh ! J. L. will smile upon us. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (25112006)

____ Mackie's error theory is not a semantic theory. I've corrected this. His theory was that there are no moral properties about which our moral judgments could be correct. There is no property in virtue of which 'That action is right' could be true just as there is no property in virtue of which 'That is a unicorn' could be true. That 'unicorn' fails to refer is not a semantic claim.

I didn't correct this, but I don't think Mackie's response to the free will defense assumes compatibilism. Not if 'compatibilism' refers to the view that determinism and freedom are compatible, at any rate. Suppose you adopt a view along the lines of Plantinga on which God knows all counterfactuals of freedom true of every possible individual but differ from Plantinga insofar as you think there are possible creatures that could be actualized in a world in which they never do evil. It seems that such a person could believe these creatures to be free in the libertarian sense (the view is at least as plausible as Plantinga's view) but Mackie's point would still hold. Moreover, there's nothing in "Evil and Omnipotence" that suggests that Mackie took his response to assume compatibilism. Anyway, I think it should be corrected, but that's just one man's opinion.

CL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.119.42.105 (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Harman

The article stated: Gilbert Harman finds Mackie's position amusing, if not paradoxical:

Mackie (1977) argues in Chapter 1 that ethics rests on a false presupposition, but then he goes on in later chapters to discuss particular moral issues. It is almost as if he had first demonstrated that God does not exist and had then gone on to consider whether He is wise and loving.

— Gilbert Harman, Explaining Value and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy.

While entertaining, I fail to see why this singular piece of opinion is relevant. -- Zz 13:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't relevant. Particularly because this is from an early review that demonstrates Harman has failed to understand Mackie (1977). The first half of the book discusses second order ethics, settling on a position of metaethical nihilism. The second half of the book is about first order ethics, however, which is an entirely separate issue when not beholden to an objectivist second order view. I think Harman's comment has no place in the article until it is fleshed out enough to include a subsection on criticisms. Postmodern Beatnik 14:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Death

Did Mackie commit suicide?

I remember this factoid from philosophy school (a long time ago), but all I can find documented online is that he "died suddenly" in 1981. 207.112.71.180 (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, he did not commit suicide, nor did he die "suddenly". He died on 12 December 1981, of cancer which was diagnosed several months earlier. 81.171.156.58 (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why should such a man like Mackie have taken his life away? Suicide? This man wanted to live, this man wanted to write.

After being free from the University, he wanted to write.

His "sudden death" was a heart stroke (er wurde von seinem Vertrauensarzt EINGESCHLÄFERT, AUF EIGENEN WUNSCH). No more and no less.

Suicide? Mackie? -- No.

Hans Rosenthal

PS: John looked like Sokrates when he went away PPS: CANCER is hard to bear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.148.82.129 (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)