| Sumario: | The article addresses a challenge posed by Akhlaghi against realist moral naturalism and moral non-cognitivism, focusing on their inability to accommodate the epistemic possibility of wholesale moral error. The author defends realist moral naturalism by arguing that even if naturalism is assumed to be true, it can still reject the claim that it cannot explain such errors. The paper outlines three scenarios where wholesale moral error remains epistemically possible under naturalism: the non-existence of moral facts, the existence of moral facts in a way that leads to error, and the temporally restricted existence of moral principles. The discussion aims to deepen the understanding of moral naturalism and error theory while engaging with Akhlaghi's requirements for meta-ethical theories.
|
|---|