“Normative” ethical theories

[Alan V]

One of the things that we rarely see is a justification for viewing ethics as anything more than the necessary behaviors of members of a tribe of apes with delusions of sentience. Sure, Don't-Be-A-Dick ethics is probably a bit too simple, but it's pretty much where it's at. Aside from keeping both philosophers and theologians occupied so that they don't endanger the public by studying anything with real-world applications, long-winded metaethical arguments never seem to be able to demonstrate a need for their inevitably bendy thinking.

Rephrasing the above with additions, this is quoted from Google:

Criticisms of normative ethics include its perceived detachment from reality, the potential for naive or overly simplistic applications of its theories, its anthropocentric focus, the problematic nature of deriving moral "oughts" from factual "is" statements (the naturalistic fallacy), and the inherent challenge of finding a universally acceptable foundation for its principles. Critics also question whether normative ethics offers genuine practical guidance or merely creates theories that are "too abstract and distant from the phenomena they ultimately describe".