You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
Thank you for the clarification! I believe that it depends entirely on the moral in question. Not killing? More than an inconvenience, because it's probably in our nature to protect our species and not just killing people left and right. That's supported by a lot (if not all) cultures having restrictions against it. Waiting until after marriage to have sex? Just an inconvenience.
Let's consider the example you gave of not killing. You say that it is, "probably in our nature to protect our species and not just killing people left and right", but if that is true, should there be need of a moral to govern it? It's not in our nature (by and large) to mutilate ourselves (e.g. cut off our own hands), yet there is no need for a moral to govern this. I would argue that morals are there to enforce the behaviours that don't come naturally to us, and forbid the behaviours that do; as it is with the example of pre-marital sex you mention.
Let us say, then, that it is within our nature to kill, and that our morals are a deterrent from doing so. There are certainly those without morals, and many of them don't engage in killing. I would argue that there are other suitable deterrents for not killing, such as the fear of punishment. If you accept this, then I must ask: does the moral still serve a purpose in preventing a moral man from killing, where the disincentive of punishment would be inadequate? Or, is it once again simply a shackle which limits his options under the circumstances? That is, do you still believe that morals like "thou shalt not kill" are the glue that holds society together, or are the other disincentives adequate?
First off, I'll counter your first paragraph. You have to understand that when these morals were created and enforced, society and civilization was still an extremely new concept, and people were unaware of our behaviors were governed by evolutionary things. And even though it's not in our nature to cut ourselves, that wasn't going on a lot back then. There was however a lot of warfare and other disputes that ended in murder.
Actually, if I may, I'd like to slightly redact my statement on killing not being in our nature. Since we are and were merely intelligent animals, killing is kind of in our nature, but only if the people we kill threaten or endanger us. Or if they're just different. And I don't believe that morals are the only thing keeping people from killing one another, but I certainly think it helps. But I think most of the morals we create exist to inhibit and deter people.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Sadistic_Bastard 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Thank you for the clarification! I believe that it depends entirely on the moral in question. Not killing? More than an inconvenience, because it's probably in our nature to protect our species and not just killing people left and right. That's supported by a lot (if not all) cultures having restrictions against it. Waiting until after marriage to have sex? Just an inconvenience.
[–] Reow [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Let's consider the example you gave of not killing. You say that it is, "probably in our nature to protect our species and not just killing people left and right", but if that is true, should there be need of a moral to govern it? It's not in our nature (by and large) to mutilate ourselves (e.g. cut off our own hands), yet there is no need for a moral to govern this. I would argue that morals are there to enforce the behaviours that don't come naturally to us, and forbid the behaviours that do; as it is with the example of pre-marital sex you mention.
Let us say, then, that it is within our nature to kill, and that our morals are a deterrent from doing so. There are certainly those without morals, and many of them don't engage in killing. I would argue that there are other suitable deterrents for not killing, such as the fear of punishment. If you accept this, then I must ask: does the moral still serve a purpose in preventing a moral man from killing, where the disincentive of punishment would be inadequate? Or, is it once again simply a shackle which limits his options under the circumstances? That is, do you still believe that morals like "thou shalt not kill" are the glue that holds society together, or are the other disincentives adequate?
[–] Sadistic_Bastard 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
First off, I'll counter your first paragraph. You have to understand that when these morals were created and enforced, society and civilization was still an extremely new concept, and people were unaware of our behaviors were governed by evolutionary things. And even though it's not in our nature to cut ourselves, that wasn't going on a lot back then. There was however a lot of warfare and other disputes that ended in murder.
Actually, if I may, I'd like to slightly redact my statement on killing not being in our nature. Since we are and were merely intelligent animals, killing is kind of in our nature, but only if the people we kill threaten or endanger us. Or if they're just different. And I don't believe that morals are the only thing keeping people from killing one another, but I certainly think it helps. But I think most of the morals we create exist to inhibit and deter people.