J.L Mackie, defender of the moral-error-theory, argues that to claim the existence of objective moral facts implies moral properties with inbuilt "to-be-pursuedness" - they would have to be intrinsically motivational. Since we do not know of the existence of any such properties, he argues that moral facts are "queer" things. I examine the positions of moral realists and anti-realists pointing out that it seems that one must either assert the existence of "queer" moral properties, or reject the truth functionality of categorical imperatives. After exploring the thought of Hilary Putnam and Emmanuel Levinas, I suggest an alternative explanation of the human moral experience that is free of "queer" moral properties. In this way, I believe to offer a more adequate explanation of human morality that defeats the false dilemma created by Mackie.
