Hans-Georg Moeller argues in his book The Moral Fool that morality is akin to a pathology. Despite society's long-standing insistence on being moral, he suggests that morality may not be the best approach to living our lives. At first glance, this perspective may sound cynical, leading one to think that Moeller advocates for a lawless, anarchic world where morality ceases to exist and chaos reigns. Some may even think that this notion puts Max Stirner to shame. However, Moeller’s point is more nuanced.

Amorality, as he describes it, is not the same as immorality. It simply means a lack of moral judgment rather than an embrace of immoral behavior. We are so deeply embedded in moral frameworks—much of which stems from the influence of Abrahamic religions—that we find it difficult to view the world without casting moral judgments at every turn.

To better understand this concept, imagine visiting a doctor for a routine checkup. If the doctor claimed your illness was a punishment from God for a sin, that would be a moral judgment. You would be labeled a "bad person" for suffering from something likely beyond your control. Now, contrast this with a doctor who simply diagnoses and treats you without bringing morality into the equation. The latter approach is arguably better for both the patient and the medical profession.

Let’s consider another scenario. Suppose a woman in a conservative society seeks an abortion. Even without explanation, we can anticipate the moral condemnation likely to arise in such a setting. This is what it means to see the world through a moralistic lens—a tendency to judge actions as inherently good or bad.

But what exactly is the problem with morality? Why suggest an alternative system? The issue with morality is its tendency to oversimplify. It often rests on fundamental principles or axioms that may not reflect the complexity of the world. It fails to account for nuance.

Additionally, morality, by its very nature, divides the world into good and evil, us and them. This binary way of thinking fosters division and hostility. It creates an "other" that must be condemned, rather than encouraging understanding or coexistence.

A common counterargument is that morality is necessary for a functional society. How would we behave without it? Moeller's answer is simple: we should rely on laws, not morals. Unlike morality, laws are not based on subjective notions of right and wrong. They exist to maintain stability and order in society. Consider traffic laws. They are not founded on morality but on the practical need for efficient and safe road use.

Creating laws for societal function is fundamentally different from embedding them with moral judgments.

Moreover, eliminating moral judgments and focusing on the legal realm would actually encourage more political engagement. Laws, after all, are a tool we can use to regulate society, while morality is often the refuge of those who cannot access or influence the legal system. By moving beyond moral thinking, we can address the real political and structural issues at play rather than getting lost in moral debates.

This approach has another advantage: laws can evolve. As society changes, so can the legal framework, making it a far more adaptable system than morality, which tends to be rigid and absolute.

Nassim Taleb, in his book Fooled by Randomness, introduces a character named Fat Tony, who sees the world through a lens of "suckers vs. non-suckers." Suckers are those who blindly follow formal systems, experts, or societal norms, falling prey to randomness or manipulation. They often place too much faith in models and predictions without recognizing life's inherent uncertainties. Traditional morality falls into this category of thinking. Non-suckers, like Fat Tony, are skeptical and pragmatic, navigating life with an understanding of its unpredictability.

By shedding the moral framework, we stop seeing the world in black-and-white terms. This, in turn, opens us up to new experiences, fosters more meaningful interactions, and ultimately strengthens our character. Morality, in its traditional sense, often limits our thinking and narrows our perspective, whereas amorality broadens our horizons and sharpens our understanding of the world.

In short, morality—far from being a universal good—may actually limit our ability to engage with the world in a meaningful way. A shift toward legal and pragmatic thinking could offer a more dynamic and inclusive approach to life.