Final answer:
In response to Mackie's Error Theory, physicalist moral realists argue that moral facts can have an objective basis involving rational inquiry, and they point to the interconnection between evaluative components and empirical facts, highlighting theories like perfectionism and natural law theory.
Step-by-step explanation:
Mackie's Error Theory posits that moral facts cannot exist in a naturalistic universe because they would require unusual epistemic abilities to discern and because they do not resemble any physical properties we know. In response, some physicalists who are also moral realists counter these points. They argue that moral facts may not be natural in the same manner as physical facts but can still be based on objective features of the world that are amenable to rational inquiry.
One such response comes from the objection to the fact-value distinction, where some assert that empirical facts often involve evaluative components, as suggested by Hilary Putnam. This implies that even scientific reasoning is not devoid of normative elements, thus moral reasoning may also be founded on an objective basis. Another response is perfectionism, which suggests that moral truths can be based on an understanding of human nature and the conditions for flourishing. Additionally, moral natural law theory posits that moral truths can be derived from natural properties by understanding the nature and purpose of human beings in the universe.