“Normative” ethical theories

[Lucian]

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.

Ah ok, I think I understand you, even though feel like I am in danger of being made more culturally aware by references to singers I have never heard of before and had to look up. Not sure I like that feeling of not restricting my knowledge to my corner of the pond.

I guess I am not fully abolitionist, more what I would class as sympathetic to it and not finding a solid reason to reject it. That said, the point of abolitionism isn’t that you just leave a vacuum. 
Depending on the flavour of the abolitionism, it could be that the type of moral expression that is being argued against is that which assigns blame and praise and retribution based on supposed moral standards. That wouldn’t banish emotional reactions, it would though seek to ground those reactions outside of non-existent (according to the abolitionist) absolute values. Such a grounding could be in empathy, a shared concern in the best use of public funds etc. The point of arguments from Morris is, in part, that basing policies and decisions around moral standards can lead to things like the American penal system where recidivism is high, rates of incarceration and punishment length are higher than most other western countries, and the whole thing is a huge economic burden. He sees that in part as being due to beliefs in needing to be tough on crime, but also tough on criminals being a proxy of that. Sentences for comparable offenses and situations go up near reelection etc, as judges want to me seen as not soft on crime. That is just one element of a much wider case

Also worth noting that I don’t see a lot of people in different political camps, here in the UK or in the US as being devoid of moral basis for what they are doing. The great thing about work like Haidt’s, and Oliver Scott Curry’s is that it shows the different types of things that could be making up the moral beliefs. For some it is more of an individualistic ethic of minimising harm for people and maximising their freedom. For other people there is more of a collectivist focus where the group is important at the expense of the individual. For some it may be about issues of purity in some cultural or religious sense with notions of disgust about an action being important. I cant recall if it is De Waal or Haidt who uses the analogy of a morality to taste with different flavours and preferences being influenced by the same basic underlying types of taste buds. We prefer some types of taste compared to other people, but largely have the same basic factors underlying the sense in different combinations.
By implementing a form of moral abolitionism you aren’t going to get rid of people’s moral taste buds, but you will give them cause to think about their responses beyond being governed by “it is right to do it this way because that person broke x moral rule and therefore is worthy of condemnation”. By becoming an anti-realist I still haven’t yet gone on my first murder spree. This isn’t due to the fact that it isn’t yet February, but is more that I have empathy for people and don’t want to go out and murder.

There would need to be an effort to promote pro-social behaviour, which incidentally people like Morris argue is actually conducive to happiness in those doing it so has benefits all around. So I am looking for what systems of ethics have been proposed that can address ideas of the best way to construct a society and live among people in it. Again, largely as a purely intellectual exercise. Just where I am at at the moment