Can morality exist without law?

Question: Are we talking about a society with no laws or no government?

I believe that morality is driven by more than just good conscience, but by fear. The fear of reprisal.

Morality can exist without laws. A lawless society doesn't necessarily mean a society without consequence. In a lawless society most people will be deterred from committing a crime because they would still fear the consequences of their actions.

In a lawless society where murder is legal, the people who commit crimes will have a new enemy to face when they commit a crime. As a result, most people will refrain from committing crimes because the consequences of committing crimes such as rape and murder would no longer be jail time, but retaliatory murder.

 

Since when do laws stop people from killing people.

Criminals are only punished if they are caught. In a free society where everyone is allowed to carry a gun, a criminal would face the imminent danger of their victim fighting back with gun shots, which is a direct danger and would discourage people from using guns in fear of their own life.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

 

The laws stop them from killing because of the consequence.

We all have grew up in a society where we know if we kill another human being we go to a place where we less of a freedom then we already have now, with of course the potentially risk of butt sex .

Knowing that we to to a miserable place for our terrible action it prevents us from doing wrong.

 

If you're like the average Atheist, no one has a meaning, truly. But, the thought of them meaning to someone else.

 

I don't really like the word moral, because by definition it is merely an opinion, which means it doesn't need to be backed up by logic. But anyways, people will go against their morals if they absolutely have to. The thing with everyone having a gun to defend themselves with is that it doesn't matter what morals you have, because people won't mess with other people due to the fear of losing their own life.

 

This is a horrible generalization of an atheist. An atheist simply doesn't believe in a higher being, they usually have their own ideas on what the meaning on life is.

Back on topic.
Morality can exist without law, as we all have a conscience, the problem is choosing to follow it. Law holds a society in order basically..

 

Atheist believe the reason of life is an accident in nature. Meaning, there is no meaning. We're here only by a sheer of luck.

To put it simple, atheists believe in nothing.

 

Cause and reason aren't the same thing. Atheists just don't believe in God.

Most atheists when asked the question about the meaning of life would probably respond that it is to reproduce and have children, in the serious sense.

 

Must have been mistaken then. I take back what I said.

 

The thought and guilt of having taken away someone's life and having to live with that for the rest of your life, the chances of him fighting back and killing me, and the fact that there could be no reason for me to unfairly take someone's life away.

Law was made when people put their morals on the table and made a social contract to abide by those morals. So morals had to have existed before law, so yes morality can exist without law.

 

Well said. We agree for once.

 

morality = humanity?
but thats not saying i couldn't kill if i had a gun or sumfin n this guy was really irritating me i would knw there is no consequence for my murder of him so id kill him no punishment hes just a burdan gone... of course if i was ever in that situation who knows if id be able to pull the trigger.
I do psychology and studies show that when tested subjects care more about who will assume responsibilty for the act than the damage done to another human being but then again the position of the person asking u to perform these acts was important aswell. soz went abit off topic there.

 

Morality is subjective, you can't write down on a piece of paper what is and isn't morally justifiable.

Therefore the law is insignificant to what is considered "moral", since very few if any agree with every single paragraph.

 

How are animals and humans the same...wtf

 

People do this every day despite law. But do morals even exist? Does a human innately know right from wrong? Or is it programmed into his/her head at such a young and impressionable age that it molds their brain into thinking or perceiving things as 'good' or 'bad'. Kids who are Orphaned or grow up in a single parent household are more likely to become serial killers or murderers because they did not have someone to program them.

I agree 100%, you seem to be very wise. Shame you're banned.

 

You’re missing the point. It's not about the parent indoctrinating their child into 'right from wrong'. It is society’s laws, which we are bounded by, into limits to which we act upon.

A poor child, with one parent - growing up in Detroit... will still know the consequences of killing a man... in conjunction to someone living well off in Philadelphia.

The only difference is; the value they feel for the consequence, which determine the path of their own life. If they don't grow up loved, and are raised without being taught these laws, then the child will grow up at a more likely chance of rebelling.

The question is:
If there wasn't any laws to begin with.
E.g. nothing to legally stop you from killing a man... then would there still be human conscience about whether to commit the act or not? Or would they just commit it? - Because there would be no rules in which they feel morally objective/reliable for.

 

I personally believe that people are not sheep. You don't need the threat of consequences to behave yourself.

If someone annoyed you, and you could kill him with a guarantee to get away with it, would you do it? I wouldn't.

 

If there wasn't any laws to begin with.. how would you determine right from wrong? So, subconsciously you would'nt be faced with that dilemma.

 

What do laws have to do with anything. Are you saying that illegal = immoral, and legal = moral?

It is perfectly possible to act immoral without breaking any laws, as well as breaking laws without acting immoral. As I've said, laws are objective while morals are subjective. That's why it doesn't match.

 

I get the point, I meant for that post to be sort of offtrack to spark a new conversation.