“Normative” ethical theories

[The Grand Nudger]

Can you help me understand what you mean here?

 Luther Ingram.  If loving you is wrong, I don't wanna be right. He's referring, ofc, to his sidepiece.

A person who believes or feels or thinks that love is good or yum or will lead to better or more desirable outcomes might not believe, feel, or think that extends to infidelity.  Conversely, a person who believes or feels or thinks that infidelity is wrong or yuck or will lead to worse or less desirable outcomes might not believe, feel, or think that extends to love.   Edge cases, where some piece of normative content is stretched to (or potentially past) it's limits.  Where, at least in that instance, the content you would otherwise affirm feels quite a bit shakier than it did before.  

For example, thinking about moral abolitionism from a utilitarian standpoint, are there any instances or circumstances in which you think the removal of moral content did or would or could cause exactly what the abolitionist seeks to reduce? A personal opinion of mine is that america is at this point because a bunch of people had their moralizers..which were admittedly shitty and malfuncting, recently removed. They stopped caring about what they said was right or wrong and opted for a utilitarian ideology of power absent any genuine moral beliefs. It did not improve our society, at least imo.