Ethics is divided up into (at least) two parts: normative ethics, the goal of which is to provide action-guiding theories of right and wrong (or permissible, impermissible, and obligatory) action; and meta-ethics, the goal of which is to answer questions about morality itself (Is it something objective or subjective? What do we mean when we say something is wrong?).
I really don’t like meta-ethics.
Firstly, I don’t like meta-ethics because it’s really hard.
On a less petty note, I also don’t like it because I’ve consistently found it to be something that “the folk” (non-philosophers, the everyday person, whatever) fall back on to defend themselves when there isn’t really anything else going for them.
“That’s just your opinion! Who’s to say you’re right and I’m wrong?”
“Well I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on what’s right.”
This tactic is especially troubling when deployed in political or social justice discussions, because it stops the conversation from going any further (like we’re supposed to answer one of the great meta-ethical questions succinctly and sufficiently in the context of a conversation?!) on matters that we really need to do something about.
I hate that people use meta-ethics as fallback and I hate that there’s not really anything you can do in response.
This has been my rant of the day.