Metaethics vs. Normative Ethics — What's the Difference?

Metaethics delves deep into the philosophical understanding of ethics. It doesn't provide moral guidelines or rules but instead questions what morality is, its origins, and what constitutes ethical language. For instance, Metaethics asks if there are objective moral truths or if morality is subjective. On the other hand, Normative Ethics is concerned with the practical aspect of morality. It provides a framework or set of guidelines about what actions are right or wrong. Essentially, while Metaethics debates the meaning of "good," Normative Ethics outlines what one should do to be "good."

While Metaethics might query the nature of moral judgments, Normative Ethics would provide the moral judgments themselves. If Metaethics raises questions like "What does 'good' mean?", Normative Ethics would answer with "This action is good because...". It's a distinction between understanding moral language and constructing moral systems.

Normative Ethics can often be seen in various ethical theories like utilitarianism, which proposes actions that maximize happiness are moral. Metaethics, however, would probe deeper, asking foundational questions about the nature of happiness and the objectivity of utilitarian principles. Therefore, while Normative Ethics offers action-guiding principles, Metaethics grapples with the very essence and foundation of those principles.

In summary, while both Metaethics and Normative Ethics address moral questions, their scopes differ. Metaethics delves into the fundamental nature of morality, ethics, and their conceptual framework, whereas Normative Ethics is concerned with determining general principles to distinguish right actions from wrong ones.