AbnormalAfrican
i never wanted to live
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2026
- Posts
- 538
- Reputation
- 514
I was reading this post-postmodernist article and i happened upon these words that struck me but i cant help but agree with.
''I argued that the notion of moral neutrality in law is a ruse, that the claim ‘Keep morality out of law’ is really a euphemism for “I want to keep your morality out of law so I can get mine in''
I really happen to agree with this take however the question that this brought me too (that we're all just trying to push our own moral standing) think if there is a good or bad when it comes to meta morality. For definitions sake i will define good as ''happiness spread'' and bad as ''unhappiness spread''. Yes i am using a Utilitarian model for this. With that being said is there really a good moral framework ? That the vast majority of us can agree too or atleast benefit from without spreading unhappiness ?
tell me if u disagree with my framework here.
''I argued that the notion of moral neutrality in law is a ruse, that the claim ‘Keep morality out of law’ is really a euphemism for “I want to keep your morality out of law so I can get mine in''
I really happen to agree with this take however the question that this brought me too (that we're all just trying to push our own moral standing) think if there is a good or bad when it comes to meta morality. For definitions sake i will define good as ''happiness spread'' and bad as ''unhappiness spread''. Yes i am using a Utilitarian model for this. With that being said is there really a good moral framework ? That the vast majority of us can agree too or atleast benefit from without spreading unhappiness ?
tell me if u disagree with my framework here.
