Can morality exist without law?

Example: Would you kill a man if there was no laws stopping you? If not laws, then what is stopping you?

 

Knowing if we do something wrong there will be consequences is the only thing that keeps us from doing something unmoral. Take away the consequences and we live in a society where you kill whom you don't like, take what you need, and do as you please.

 

Agreed with mu-b, he's correct

 

Fear isn't the only solution.



The thought that their life had a meaning.

 

What makes anyone's life meaningless?

 

The thing that differs us from animals; is our ability to turn relevant information and morals into judgment. Without regulations, and the thought of them... there would be nothing stopping us mentally from doing what we feel.

 

I'd kill a man if there were no consequences, for sure. Hell, that's why I'm joining the military now.

 

It's also the fact that; no rules to begin with = no continence

 

You don't need laws to stop you from doing something, just common sense.

 

How would you know what common sense is? Without having guidelines to show you right, from wrong.

 

I would kill a man if their wasn't a law. I don't see the difference in killing an animal and a human, since we are the same things.

 

Laws are made to stop a minority of people from committing crimes. Morality is also impossible to define, and law sets clear guidelines.

 

No laws just means we will not get in trouble if we do it. Laws may give us guide lines, but what about our conscious. We might not get in trouble, but emotionally we might be torn apart.
For example, many women that have abortions don't regret it at first, but later they are depressed over what they have done.

 

All our lives we have grew up in a society where we know if we do something wrong we would have consequences. If w where raised in a community that was not based on laws and you could kill if you wanted or steal what you needed people would use it to their advantage and every day our society would fall to a rapid decline due to the mass amounts of murders.

 

I doubt it.

Consequences don't need to be legally defined. It might not be against the law for me to insult someone, but it doesn't mean I'll run about doing it.

 

That's you, not the other billion of people in the world. You can not speak on their behalf, on your own.

 

Exactly, him. He can not speak on the behalf of others but only himself.

 

All I'm saying is that you don't need a legal document entitled "LAW" for people to create rules and consequences for themselves.

And your opinions are all-encompassing and universal? Bullshit. This sort of argument is just plain illogical; after all, everyone in the debate forum is arguing from their perspective, not the grand and illusive perspective of "EVERYONE" as you seem to believe.

 

Point made. ; People would kill if there weren't laws and your 'freedom fighting' bull shit doesn't impress anyone. Those who try to be a rebel on the internet... I don't need to finish.

 

If that was supposed to be an insult, I'm confused. If it wasn't, I'd point out that I'm not an anarchist.

You seem to be misinterpreting the logic behind this topic. It's not a rebellion or a rally for anarchism- merely a philosophical debate. Welcome to the SFA.

Both of them could kill in a law-bound society. What makes you think that there would be no consequences (if not even stiffer consequences) in a society without law? A minority of people commit the majority of the crimes. Regardless of legal consequences, it would take a mighty feat for the minority of societal outcasts to break the basic moral guidelines of the majority.

I hate to quote myself, but I have a feeling you completely misinterpreted the meaning of this statement. The point here isn't that I'm a "great moral citizen", but this: Insulting people isn't a crime or legally defined (for the most part), but people generally disdain from it in acknowledgment of its consequences.