Abstract

The first part of the paper presents Dworkin’s claim on the impossibility of the distinction between metaethics and normative ethics. According to Dworkin, the distinction is grounded in two claims: that metaethics is austere (i.e., it is purely descriptive) and neutral (i.e., without normative consequences); since both claims are false, then metaethics does not exist. The second part of the paper shows three groups of objections to this argument. These are toward how the argument itself is built; Dworkin’s conception of Hume’s Law; and some interpretation of certain metaethical theories. The paper aims to prove that the distinction between metaethics and normative ethics can be maintained