 He isn’t eating or drinking and he is seeing Catherine’s face in everything, wherever he looks, whoever he looks at, becomes Catherine. The ghost is what has driven his madness to begin affecting him physically and it plays a similar role for the reader.  Without the ghost the reader has no physical representation of Heathcliff’s despair, it would otherwise all be in his head. For the reader, the ghost is the manifestation of Heathcliff’s obsession and the mental and emotional turmoil he experiences over it; it makes Heathcliff’s problems graspable, outside of him directing them to the audience in a monologue, and heightens the tension surrounding Heathcliff’s misery by adding the element of the supernatural.
Both novels, Wuthering Heights and Oliver Twist, use mystery and the supernatural as an exciting agent that sets them apart as gems of the period.  Tension is built up like a storm in scenes of violence that are both brutal and eerie, sometimes leaving it open as to what was real and what exactly was a dream, like when Oliver relives being shot or when Lockwood dreams of ghosts.  It bolsters the development of characters in their motives and emotion, dramatizing their misery and despair.  But the real beauty of this element in each story is the way each author uses it to weave together ideas, questions, and dilemmas in the mind of the reader; how it inspires curiosity and intrigue that locks the audience in.

In the chapter from his book, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, entitled “The Subjectivity of Values” J.L. Mackie argues that there are no objective values in the case of morality.  The aim of this paper will be to refute the arguments he makes in the section “The Argument from Relativity” where he attempts to prove this claim through what is essentially an argument from disagreement made by an inference to the best explanation. This will be attempted by means of an attack on his account of relative morality through a reapplication of his own arguments against objective moral value.
	The basic form of his argument is that for morality to have an objective value then there must not be disagreement, but there is disagreement so therefore morality can not have objective value.  His explanation for the disagreement is that moral codes are developed instead from culture and community and that different groups have a different set of beliefs, which of course leads to disagreement within the groups. “Disagreement about moral codes seems to reflect people’s adherence to and participation in different ways of life.” (Mackie 109).  Monogamy, as a value, is his main example for this section: he concludes that the best explanation would be that people approve of monogamy because they participate in a monogamous way of life and not the reverse. Here we see him clearly making an inference to the best explanation in that the weight of his claim is derived from it seeming more likely or plausible. 