Okay. I think I see what is happening. The whole issue get’s weirdly skewed by divine command theory, which is so simple it is hard to see the distinction and which implies a very particular formula for a normative theory. Let me outline the position:
Metaethics: Divine Command theory. In answer to the question “What is morality?” they answer “the will/decree of God”.
Normative Ethics: In answer to the question “Why is murder immoral?” they provide a proof that God decrees murder to be immoral, say, a justification for the Bible as the word of God and a citation of the Ten Commandments. Non-judeo-christian divine command theorists would say something else. Some normative theories under the umbrella of divine command theory could even be consequentialist, “God told me in a dream to maximize preference satisfaction.” These answers assume divine command theory but they’re still normative theory.
Now in a real life debate with a divine command theorist they may emphasize the “God said so part” instead of the “here is where he said it” part. But that’s just pragmatics: you don’t care about the normative proof until you share the meta-ethic so it is reasonable for a divine command theorists to skip straight to the major point of contention.
In the case of divine command deontology the “non-answer” issue is pretty much entirely about the meta-ethical assumptions and not the actual normative theory. So I can see why you were emphasizing the fact that deontology is logically independent of any particular meta-ethical framework.
It might be less confusing to just emphasize that “deontology” isn’t a particular normative theory—just a class of normative theory determined by a particular feature (just like consequentialism) and that there is nothing necessarily mysterious or magical about that feature; that that association is due to a particular sort of deontological normative theory which is popular among non-philosophers, a theory which assumes a stupid meta-ethics even though there is no need for deontologists to embrace that meta-ethics.
To summarize: I’m not sure that you’ve correctly identified the conventional line between normative ethics and meta-ethics, but I can see why the context of divine command theory makes the question “why is murder wrong?” seem like a meta-ethical one. When I said you were right in spirit I meant that I agreed that people were strawmaning deontology but disagreed as to the nature of the error. I don’t think it’s that “why is murder wrong?” isn’t a normative question. Rather, it’s that people assume deontology refers to a particular kind of deontology which assume an unhelpful and uninteresting metaethics and this leads that brand of deontology to be unable to given interesting answers to “why” questions.
Okay. I think I see what is happening. The whole issue get’s weirdly skewed by divine command theory, which is so simple it is hard to see the distinction and which implies a very particular formula for a normative theory. Let me outline the position:
I’m not sure that divine command theory implies “a very particular formula for a normative theory”. In practice, many divine command theorists pay a lot of attention to things like casuistry (i.e. case-based reasoning) and situational ethics. In other words, they do morality “case by case” or “fable by fable”. Surely any such moral theory must contain a lot of non-trivial normative content. It’s not at all the case that all arguing happens on the meta-ethical, “God said it” level.
Okay. I think I see what is happening. The whole issue get’s weirdly skewed by divine command theory, which is so simple it is hard to see the distinction and which implies a very particular formula for a normative theory. Let me outline the position:
Metaethics: Divine Command theory. In answer to the question “What is morality?” they answer “the will/decree of God”.
Normative Ethics: In answer to the question “Why is murder immoral?” they provide a proof that God decrees murder to be immoral, say, a justification for the Bible as the word of God and a citation of the Ten Commandments. Non-judeo-christian divine command theorists would say something else. Some normative theories under the umbrella of divine command theory could even be consequentialist, “God told me in a dream to maximize preference satisfaction.” These answers assume divine command theory but they’re still normative theory.
Now in a real life debate with a divine command theorist they may emphasize the “God said so part” instead of the “here is where he said it” part. But that’s just pragmatics: you don’t care about the normative proof until you share the meta-ethic so it is reasonable for a divine command theorists to skip straight to the major point of contention.
In the case of divine command deontology the “non-answer” issue is pretty much entirely about the meta-ethical assumptions and not the actual normative theory. So I can see why you were emphasizing the fact that deontology is logically independent of any particular meta-ethical framework.
It might be less confusing to just emphasize that “deontology” isn’t a particular normative theory—just a class of normative theory determined by a particular feature (just like consequentialism) and that there is nothing necessarily mysterious or magical about that feature; that that association is due to a particular sort of deontological normative theory which is popular among non-philosophers, a theory which assumes a stupid meta-ethics even though there is no need for deontologists to embrace that meta-ethics.
To summarize: I’m not sure that you’ve correctly identified the conventional line between normative ethics and meta-ethics, but I can see why the context of divine command theory makes the question “why is murder wrong?” seem like a meta-ethical one. When I said you were right in spirit I meant that I agreed that people were strawmaning deontology but disagreed as to the nature of the error. I don’t think it’s that “why is murder wrong?” isn’t a normative question. Rather, it’s that people assume deontology refers to a particular kind of deontology which assume an unhelpful and uninteresting metaethics and this leads that brand of deontology to be unable to given interesting answers to “why” questions.
Any of that make sense?
Yes, and I don’t think we have any further disagreement. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
I’m not sure that divine command theory implies “a very particular formula for a normative theory”. In practice, many divine command theorists pay a lot of attention to things like casuistry (i.e. case-based reasoning) and situational ethics. In other words, they do morality “case by case” or “fable by fable”. Surely any such moral theory must contain a lot of non-trivial normative content. It’s not at all the case that all arguing happens on the meta-ethical, “God said it” level.
This is a good point.