Murder is defined as unlawful killing, so it’s not meaningful to observe that no society allows murder. There are other words we have for killing when it is socially acceptable, such as execution and lethal force.
it would have a similar meaning, at least from my perspective.
but with murder, why is it that all cultures outlaw it? Or let me give you another one, what about cutting in line? Or what about selfish behavior in general. These are not outlawed, but they are frowned upon in every culture. What if when I met you in person I slapped you in the face, and then did so to every nation in the world, as my formal greeting whenever I met a person. So instead of shaking hands, I just slapped them silly. That would be shunned upon yes? I may feel superior for a moment, but that would be a selfish thing to do just for a simple gratification of feeling stronger and more powerful than people around me, and possibly get into quite a few scuffles regarding it. Point is that regardless of what people feel about truth or religion, slapping someone is not a good greeting. I don't care if your hindu, atheist, muslim, or agnostic. Same thing with cutting in line, stealing property, raping, killing, etc. Even simple selfish behavior is shunned upon in every culture. Moral codes exist by nature. My question is why are they there? Who put them there.
There are obvious practical reasons to uphold common courtesies. What else do you need? You’re puzzling over why people don’t enjoy being slapped. I have to ask, are you a psychopath?
Yes. The enduring portions of moral codes are based of promoting behavior that helps the group and to a lesser (but still significant) extent, the individual, thrive.
I don't think dogs for example follow a moral code. I believe they follow instinct. For example there would be no salvation army for dogs, some dogs donating their food for other dogs. No they would eat it all themselves, and do so until they vomit or worse. That is instinct not morality. So since animals don't have morality but have instinct, where did the moral law we are talking about come from? Since animals don't have it, it could not have evolved.
Taking lives, even lawful killings have negative effects on people involved. We have a lot of examples of that from the 20th century Russia and Germany, for example. In the early Soviet history, the lawful executioners often became victims of alcoholism, severe mental instability, and in many instances, the state had to liquidate them as well. The Nazis turned to industrial extermination because of the effects observed on their own people involved in "lawful", mass executions. All of them, btw, were volunteers and true belivers in the cause with the full support of their state. We can safely assume, from those examples, that taking lives is genetically encoded in humans as a negative action.
Sure. Again, it is obvious why we would evolve the preference to live in a society that discourages killing rather than encourages it. Morality is very, very handy for the preservation of groups.
Yes. Dogs have instinct to promote what works for the survival of the individual and the pack. We have that too.
Can you please repost? I am not sure I remember a question. Thanks for the comment.
elephants have a large brain, they don't share food with other elephants. Dolphins have a large brain, comparable to humans, they don't share food with others in the same pack or pod. Sperm whales have a 17 pound brain, I don't see them sharing their food waters with other species. Rather I see them competing for food, all of them. Humans rather share food, in fact there are 60,000 charities that distribute food in the united states. All funded by other humans. There are charities for all sorts of things. Humans care about other humans, at least have the potential to. Animals have a motherly and pack instinct, but in some situations eat their own children. Chimpanzees are supposed to be very similiar to humans, however they eat their own children sometimes. Humans simply don't do that. And even passed laws forbidding it, because they know better. So animals have instincts, humans have what is called a conscience. It tells them to do right or wrong, it is aided by religion or classes in morality, but it exists prior to all of that. This conscience, obeys by nature what is called by christian philosophers the natural law. Or for our puposes call moral truth, or moral laws. Slightly different than moral facts, some things can be moral, yes that is a fact but that is separate from a moral law governing all people in the same way. And again, if you go to any country selfishness is not exalted among humans, or honored. Yet in the animal kingdom, selfishness seems to be the rule of the jungle.
I think there are core values we hold that are natural to us based on the sort of creatures we are. We could call these values part of the set of natural facts of being human. Among these values are physical safety, health, friendship, a degree of autonomous control over ourselves, and more.
I think you may have me confused. I am not an atheist. I am just trying to objectively articulate their view on morality.
That's interesting.
