在你們自己的人生當中，藉由將「道德價值」(“moral value”)從你們的選擇中移除，你們也就移除了「道德權威」(“moral authority”)（反正， 所謂的「道德權威」從未曾真正的存在過 ，你們不過是自行杜撰虛構了關於它的一切）。
So let's bring the discussion down to a level at which “functionality,” the principle, can be more easily understood as it relates to “morality,” the mental construct.
Supposing you are driving westward in the United States, heading toward the Pacific Ocean, and you wish to go to Seattle. It would do you no good to turn south to San Jose. If you did so, you would be said to be going the “wrong” direction. Yet that label would be misleading if you equated the label “wrong” with the word “immoral.”
There is nothing immoral about going to San Jose. It simply is not where you intend to go. It is not what you wish to do. It is not what you chose as your destination.
Trying to get to Seattle by driving south to San Jose is a lapse of functionality, not a lapse of morality.
A thought, word, or deed either works or does not work, given what it is that you are trying to be, do, or have. If it works, it is called “correct,” or “right.” If it does not work, it is called “incorrect,” or “wrong.”
When it is called “wrong” it has nothing to do with a breakdown in morality, nor with the thwarting of “God's will.” It is your will that has been thwarted. You didn't get to be, do, or have what you wanted to be, do, or have.
Your society might do well not to place moral judgments on alternative choices or actions. In highly evolved societies, it is simply noticed whether choices and actions “work” or “do not work” in producing the result or outcome that is collectively desired.
In your own life, by taking the “moral value” out of your choices, you remove the “moral authority” from them. (They never had moral authority anyway. You have been making this all up.)