Can someone give a run down of the popular ways of thinking about ethics and which meta-ethical theories claim that only some things are permitted? I've read a couple of SEP articles on ethics, nothing much more, and so my question is a bit limited, but I'm not directly asking about 'truth' or "objectivity", only which philosophers out there would agree.

In light of any answer, philosophers which say only some things are permitted, I'm wondering which of them say that everyone is right about what is permitted, which meta-ethical theory allows for both.

I'm guessing some species of relativism might allow them both, but I'm not sure.

  • i googled moral error theory recently and it seems a bit like that in practice, but i don't really understand the practical implications of it, not yet
    – user67675
    Sep 17, 2023 at 15:01
  • 1
    The gist of practical implication of moral error theory is perhaps the same as the illusory nature of phenomenal-consciousness as discussed in yesterday's post. Error doesn't mean arbitrariness as if there's a meta random generator constantly befalls and confuses us human beings. Even in dreams we see meanings and values at least relatively and comparatively... Sep 19, 2023 at 6:34
  • well there's "arbitrary" and "anything goes" and i'm not sure those are exactly the same @DoubleKnot "whatever i think it is" need not be arbitrary, in that what i think is conditioned by habit etc
    – user67675
    Sep 19, 2023 at 6:45
  • I believe colloquially they are proper names for the same property... Sep 19, 2023 at 6:51
  • ok that may be the case. yeah i agree error doesn't mean "anything goes", but afaik it does allow it @DoubleKnot and that has practical implications
    – user67675
    Sep 19, 2023 at 6:55


You must log in to answer this question.