According to Mackie’s Argument “1. If there are genuine moral requirements, then they must be intrinsically motivating and intrinsically reason giving. 2. Nothing is either intrinsically motivating or intrinsically reason giving. 3. Therefore, there are no genuine moral requirements.” . This argument can be logically translated, and then tested, using a truth assignment test as to its Logical Validity; 1. (G1 (M0 • R0)) ≠ 1, 2. ~ (M0 R0) = 1, ~G1 = 0. Thus, the argument for Queerness as he posits is logically valid, as no possible cases have premises that are all true and the conclusion false. So, building from this logically valid argument, one can evaluate the individual kinds of queerness, which is divided into two main categories; first the metaphysical (motivation and reason) and second the epistemological. For this paper, one will evaluate the motivational queerness, “moral judgement requires that we motivated to act in accordance” .
The link between moral judgment and motivation is one in which moral judgement requires the facts to produce the motivation required to act and classify something was wrong. Where as in motivational queerness, it is the discovering of the moral object that one becomes