Problems that arise when trying to carry out meaningful metatheoretical analysis are first of all considered from the standpoint of moral fullness of these initiatives. A number of paradoxes, which accompany a long polemic about metatheoretical research, have been allocated. Attention is focused on discrepancy of ethical basis of scientific knowledge and possible inhuman use of metatheoretical instruments. The author analyzes contradiction between the need to enter into concerted actions between representatives of various branches of science to minimize crises and lack of a broad request for metatheorytizing by those who are called upon to be responsible for public stability. It is emphasized that in majority of the main directions of scientific research, significant progress has been achieved, which makes it possible to outline perspective of social system from the standpoint of total control and management over the individual by separate social groups. Problematic nature and, at the same time, applied importance of metatheorytizing increases with the account of the possibility of transition from a society of primary employment to a society of “not working”. Separate place in assessing complexities of metatheorytizing is given to human qualities, in particular, envy, which essentially prevents constructive cooperation in scientific environment. Primary role of sociology in attempts to perform metatheoretical research is considered. It is important to understand the vulnerable position of sociological science itself. On the one hand, it can and must assume responsibility, seeking to perform coordinating and consolidating functions in metatheoretical research, but on the other hand, sociology diminishes its place in the system of scientific knowledge, positioning itself as only one equalranking link in the general chain of humanitarian disciplines.