Question

"The error theorist doesn’t think that torturing innocent people is morally wrong, but doesn’t think that it is morally good or morally permissible either. It is important that criticisms of the moral error theorist do not trade on equivocating between the implications that hold in ordinary contexts and the implications that hold in metaethical contexts."

isn't it by definition morally permissible? How can something not be morally wrong,and at the same time not be morally permissible?

Answer 1

The error theorist argues that moral statements, including statements about torturing innocent people, are all false because there are no objective moral facts. This does not mean that torturing innocent people is morally permissible, but rather that moral statements lack truth value in the error theorist's metaethical framework.

Step-by-step explanation:

The error theorist in metaethics argues that moral statements are all false because there are no objective moral facts. According to the error theorist, when we say that torturing innocent people is morally wrong, we are making a factual claim that is ultimately false. However, the error theorist also believes that moral statements cannot be true or false, as there are no moral properties in the world to ground these statements. Therefore, they do not think that torturing innocent people is morally permissible either. Instead, they argue that these statements lack truth value.

It is important to understand that the error theorist's position is specific to metaethical contexts, where they are examining the nature of moral statements and whether they can be objective. The error theorist is not making a claim about what people generally consider morally wrong or morally permissible in ordinary contexts. They are not saying that torturing innocent people is morally permissible, but rather that moral statements lack objective truth.