normativity paradox? equilibrium

To be attached to a value is to suffer from failures to live up to it--either one's own failures, or those of close social relations. NOT to suffer, is to be detached from that value. There is little in between. (Unless the value is a purely pragmatic one, arguable, reasonable... no... it will still be attached to emotions... because what is pragmatic derives from living needs, which are inherently emotive in the creature. )

Imagine the satiation of some desire that is considered by one to be wrong (perhaps through tradition), and yet difficult for another to abstain from, perhaps precisely because not obiviously hurting others. Those values in relationship, produce strife both when the value is lived up to, doubly when the value is not lived up to, but not at all when the value is abandoned... if "no one gets hurt." Of course, if someone is sometimes hurt, or always hurt, or many people always hurt, the suffering might impress itself, in proportion of its visibility to the value-holder, upon the value and its maintenance.

So there is a pull and push, a dialectic, that amounts to a pressure toward some morality, for any given form of life, that is in equilibrium between the minimization of the physical suffering and the minimization of socio-psycho suffering.