Hello all, I appreciated the feedback I got on my previous piece. This is a follow-up, and I'd be happy to respond to any additional feedback.

Summary: Since morality is those principles that can not be reasonably rejected based on public reasons, morality would exclude those principles that are motivated by private reasons. This includes one's conception of the good, sense of meaning, and personal values. While these values are what makes life worth living, they couldn't be reasonably accepted by others and therefore lack moral authority. They aren't objective properties that can be analyzed and judged, but are subjective properties that we impose on the world. They would be in the "freedom residual" of our lives, whereas morality is in the "reason core." Meta-ethics is about finding out what claims belong where. Additionally, given the "acceptance" condition of morality, the Repugnant Conclusion, utilitarianism, and libertarianism would also be excluded as ethical determinations.

I get that this is controversial, but this article only seeks to defend the current definition of morality that hopefully can be used more often in moral discourse.