By “a moral world”, I mean that many actions or states are categorized as good or evil, and that this is a good measure to evaluate whether we should do these actions of reach these states, regardless of other measures such as expected utility or pleasure.
The last 10 words beg a lot of the question.
I would argue that living in a non-murdery society is good in terms of expected utility, and that breaking a social contract to avoid murder is bad, because breaking contracts is bad.
The last 10 words beg a lot of the question.
I would argue that living in a non-murdery society is good in terms of expected utility, and that breaking a social contract to avoid murder is bad, because breaking contracts is bad.
But you’ve ruled out that approach by fiat.