I've read the majority of the Less Wrong articles on metaethics, and I'm still very very confused. Is this normal or have I missed something important? Is there any sort of consensus on metaethics beyond the ruling out of the very obviously wrong?
Your response is normal - the metaethics sequence is quite opaque, especially compared to others, like the "Mysterious Questions" sequence.
I'm doubtful there is much consensus on the correct metaethics in this community - anecdotal evidence is that there isn't even consensus on the meaning of the technical vocabulary we use. For an intermediate look into some of the issues, I suggest the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries on moral realism and moral anti-realism
Also, I recently realized in discussions that realism is a two place word, not...
From the last thread:
Meta: