On the possibility of wholesale moral error

The moral error theory, it seems, could be true. mere possibility of its truth might also seem inconsequential. But is not. For, I argue, there a sense in which the theory possible that generates an argument against both non-cognitivism and naturalism. argue epistemic morality subject to some form wholesale kind would make Denying this has three unwelcome consequences such allowing for explaining adequacy condition on meta-ethical theories. Non-cognitivism naturalism, cannot capture so are false. My additionally provides independent reason accept Derek Parfit's claim if non-naturalism false then nothing matters. conclude whether epistemically may be, Richard Rorty's words, ‘one those issues puts everything up grabs at once’ even so, non-cognitivists naturalists remain unmoved by based upon it, only helps highlight significance my argument.