Why Do You Think Murder Is Wrong?

[bluebell]

You say that God just exist! Why is that not a problem? Why can't morality just exist? (this isn't my postion though)

Actually, i don't say that He just exists-the LDS religion does a lot to explain the existence of God-i don't believe for a minute that He just is-so likewise, i don't believe that morality just is either.

Furthermore, why does a declaration by God make something right? Would torturing little children be right if God declrared it so? If he wouldn't do such a thing then it must be because he knows it's wrong no matter what he says. Thus even God would have to depend on the background morality that just exists!!

Are exclamation points for emphasis or are you really upset about something that i have said? If you're really upset, why? I'm just voicing my opinion, not asking you to agree with me.

back to your question though-if this moral law that humans inherently feel inside of them comes from another Being-then it is logical to believe that such a moral law could only come from a moral Being.

If God is a reality that has made this moral law-and if this same God wants us to behave by this moral law-then logically, He must be moral. At least, that is how i see it.

It's not a provable position in the least-i'm simply pointing out that there is logic in it and it's not something that i believe just is the way it is.

[bluebell]

Hmmm - ok. I think I get what your saying. I think your making a point similar to Bsix.

...if we have 'instincts', then why have we created 'laws' to govern ourselves, that can sometimes conflict with our instincts?

I'd say the answer is that we have developed a self-aware consiousness, which has added another 'layer' to our behavioural make-up. It is clearly influenced by instinct, but not 'ruled' by it. It can make it's own rules up as it goes along.

So - yes, I think I see what your saying. But what you attibute to 'something else', I call 'human creativity'.

To some extent, we are making our own rules up as we go along. It's nature's latest evolutionary 'experiment'.

Is it gonna work out? I donno - we haven't been around 'that' long in the big scheme of things

So you have made sense at one time or another?

...you're up on me then

I get what you are saying-

You believe that we have made our own moral law-for some reason that has nothing to do with the survival of our species or our instincts (because if it did-then we wouldn't have made that moral law-as our behavioral instincts already do that.

I believe that humans agree that there is a moral law-which is very real-which none of us actually made but which we, for some reason, expect everyone else to live by-and which we also feel an obligation to live by personally as well...

and that the most logical explanation for such a human law is that it comes from outside of us-from some other Being-which i believe is God.

There, we've laid out our battlelines before us-now we can duel to the death over which is right.

ps-sorry, i've been reading some dumb novel set in 17 century england and the dueling analogies have taken over....

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

ps-sorry, i've been reading some dumb novel set in 17 century england and the dueling analogies have taken over....

Heh. En guarde!

You believe that we have made our own moral law-for some reason that has nothing to do with the survival of our species or our instincts (because if it did-then we wouldn't have made that moral law-as our behavioral instincts already do that.

Well - you say it has 'nothing to do with our survival'. But I wouldn't say that, and I'm pretty sure I didn't.

I'd say it obviously isn't too detremental to our survival, because we are still here.

And laws like 'Thou shalt not murder' have obvious survivability advantage.

I said that such things as 'laws' are nature's latest experiement. But that doesn't mean it has 'nothing to do with survivability'.

Every survival trait we've ever developed has been an 'experiment' that ended up helping the species. It's not like nature develops 'instinct' and then says "Well, that'll do. Why is anything more than instinct nessesary?".

Mainly because nature doesn't talk to itself!

While instinct has served 'us' (and the rest of the animal kingdom) well, it's hardly a 'perfect' mechanism...

I believe that humans agree that there is a moral law-which is very real-which none of us actually made but which we, for some reason, expect everyone else to live by-and which we also feel an obligation to live by personally as well...

Again using the murder example, it also makes sense for that to become an enshrined 'law' because it's just an expression of an inbuilt instinct. It would therefore make sense that's it's practically universal - in all cultures.

and that the most logical explanation for such a human law is that it comes from outside of us-from some other Being-which i believe is God.

I wouldn't go that far! I know - I'm sure your shocked!

There, we've laid out our battlelines before us-now we can duel to the death over which is right.

Or we could just agree .via PM that one of us breaks Godwin's Law when we get bored, and then both claim we won!

[Bach]

C.S. Lewis explains 'this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at any given moment, to play one note ont he piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The moral law tells us the tune we have to play-our instincts are merely the keys'

This is a total non-sequitur. Even assuming that there is a thing that "judges between two instincts", we have no grounds to conclude that this third thing is not also an instinct. Much less do we have grounds to say that it must be a law from on high.

C.S Lewis was a terrible philosopher. I think this thread needs an infusion of John Stuart Mill, also known as "The Man":

I mean, come on. Look at that sexy beard.

[Mighty Curelom]

Bluebell said:

One answer could be that it is part of our evolution-but that doesn't really work. We know we have instincts and a sense of the 'herd mentality', no doubt, but when we examine those instincts against moral laws, then we begin to see clearly that the moral law we inherently believe in is actually in opposition to many of these natural instincts.

I don't buy this argument any more now than when Lewis originally made it. There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that morality originated through evolutionary processes. Just the other day I read about a research team that found even chimps have rudimentary moral instincts. This was demonstrated by giving each of the chimps a slice of cucumber for completing a task. When all the chimps received a cucumber slice, everyone was happy; the chimps ate their slice with nary a complaint. But when the researchers gave one of the chimps a grape--which chimps greatly prefer to cucumber slices, for obvious reasons--the other chimps refused to eat their cucumber. They threw their slices on the ground in disgust. Even these primitive beasts could sense unfairness going on, and it upset them. I highly doubt that a predilection for fairness in chimps can be attributed to the Light of Jesus, so it must have evolved naturally. Our own sense of justice--which is the foundation morality is built on--is only a more sophisticated version of the same instinct.

If we were ruled only by our instincts then two things should happen. We should always pick the instinct that is stronger-and we should feel no guilt or remorse for that choice.

Why should we always pick the instinct that is stronger? And why should we feel no guilt for following one instinct over another?

C.S. Lewis pointed out the difference in the laws you have listed and murder (or moral laws)-moral laws are the only laws by which mankind is free to disobey.

We can't disobey gravity by choice-no one can choose not to fall if someone pushes them off a cliff. We can however choose whether or not to obey moral laws.

If I were a Buddhist, I'd say that mankind cannot disobey moral laws. If you step off a very tall building, it might appear that you had violated the law of gravity--for about 10 seconds. Then you'd find that gravity was very much in force, even while you were suspended in air. The same could be said for moral laws. If you commit a harmful act, you store up bad karma. Eventually you'll get your comeuppance, if not in this lifetime then in a future one.

[bluebell]

Or we could just agree .via PM that one of us breaks Godwin's Law when we get bored, and then both claim we won!

ooohhh-sneaky, i like that.

[bluebell]

This is a total non-sequitur. Even assuming that there is a thing that "judges between two instincts", we have no grounds to conclude that this third thing is not also an instinct. Much less do we have grounds to say that it must be a law from on high.

C.S Lewis was a terrible philosopher. I think this thread needs an infusion of John Stuart Mill, also known as "The Man":

I mean, come on. Look at that sexy beard.

Just because there is no proof of a conclusion-does not automatically make it a non sequitur.

I think that C.S. Lewis makes some interesting points (and since he was an atheist for much of his life-has an interesting point of view) and that his conclusions do have logic in them-just as there is also logic in your conclusions...

logic does not equal proof-it just gives validity to considering the point.

[Bach]

I think you and I have different definitions of non-sequitur, bluebell.

Stating something in logical form doesn't make it correct, or even likely to be correct, or even plausible. I considered Lewis' argument, rest assured; it's just that, upon so doing, I found it to be bad.

[bluebell]

Bluebell said:

I don't buy this argument any more now than when Lewis originally made it. There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that morality originated through evolutionary processes. Just the other day I read about a research team that found even chimps have rudimentary moral instincts. This was demonstrated by giving each of the chimps a slice of cucumber for completing a task. When all the chimps received a cucumber slice, everyone was happy; the chimps ate their slice with nary a complaint. But when the researchers gave one of the chimps a grape--which chimps greatly prefer to cucumber slices, for obvious reasons--the other chimps refused to eat their cucumber. They threw their slices on the ground in disgust. Even these primitive beasts could sense unfairness going on, and it upset them. I highly doubt that a predilection for fairness in chimps can be attributed to the Light of Jesus, so it must have evolved naturally. Our own sense of justice--which is the foundation morality is built on--is only a more sophisticated version of the same instinct.

Isn't it a bit of a leap to believe that the chimps refused to eat their cucumber slices because they felt they were being dealt with unfairly? It sounds a bit like making the data fit the already formed conclusion and not the other way around.

Maybe they thought if they got rid of their cucumbers-they would get grapes too? Who knows?

Why should we always pick the instinct that is stronger? And why should we feel no guilt for following one instinct over another?

Because a feeling of guilt implies that something we did was wrong-and if we were being driven soley by instincts, then following one shouldn't ever make us feel guilty.

If I were a Buddhist, I'd say that mankind cannot disobey moral laws. If you step off a very tall building, it might appear that you had violated the law of gravity--for about 10 seconds. Then you'd find that gravity was very much in force, even while you were suspended in air. The same could be said for moral laws. If you commit a harmful act, you store up bad karma. Eventually you'll get your comeuppance, if not in this lifetime then in a future one.

First off-it doesn't take 10 seconds to begin to fall on the earth-instantaneously gravity would being to pull us to the ground if nothing is below us and nothing is hold us up.

Secondly-we're not talking about consequences here-we're talking about the ability to choose when to not comply with a law.

Consequences are what happens after we choose something-they are not the choice itself.

We can't choose not to comply with gravity, if we live on the earth we are subject to it, that's just the way it is-it is not a choice we can make. The consequences of trying to break that law are a different subject.

We can, however, choose whether or not we will comply with a moral law-that is very much within our power, again, regardless of the consequences.

[bluebell]

I think you and I have different definitions of non-sequitur, bluebell.

Stating something in logical form doesn't make it correct, or even likely to be correct, or even plausible. I considered Lewis' argument, rest assured; it's just that, upon so doing, I found it to be bad.

I looked up the word-to make sure i was understanding you correctly-and the dictionary said that it was a statement that did not form a logical conclusion.

There's probably more than one meaning though-what definition would you prefer that we use?

Also-really, i'm not arguing for people to accept Lewis arguement (so i'm resting assured regardless of what you or anyone else has considered. ) Only that the arguement exists and i believe has valid points.

[Bach]

That definition is a little misleading from my understanding of the term. It would be difficult to call something an argument if it didn't have a conclusion. I think a proper definition would say that the conclusion of a non-sequitur doesn't follow from the rest of the argument -- something like that.

I get that all you want is for me to acknowledge that you think Lewis' argument is strong. I do. I think, though, that the purpose of argumentation is to get a better grasp of truth. To this end, I hope you consider my rebuttal to Lewis, and either reject it on logical grounds, or accept that, although supernatural morality may exist, Lewis' argument for it isn't a good reason to believe in it.

[Mighty Curelom]

First off-it doesn't take 10 seconds to begin to fall on the earth-instantaneously gravity would being to pull us to the ground if nothing is below us and nothing is hold us up.

Secondly-we're not talking about consequences here-we're talking about the ability to choose when to not comply with a law.

Consequences are what happens after we choose something-they are not the choice itself.

We can't choose not to comply with gravity, if we live on the earth we are subject to it, that's just the way it is-it is not a choice we can make. The consequences of trying to break that law are a different subject.

But consequences are exactly the issue. We only know that gravity exists because we can observe its consequences. The consequence of stepping off a building are that gravity will pull you quickly to the ground. The consequence of murder is...whatever Karma deems appropriate. In that sense--the only sense that makes any sense--one cannot choose when or when not to "comply" with moral law.

[bluebell]

That definition is a little misleading from my understanding of the term. It would be difficult to call something an argument if it didn't have a conclusion. I think a proper definition would say that the conclusion of a non-sequitur doesn't follow from the rest of the argument -- something like that.

I get that all you want is for me to acknowledge that you think Lewis' argument is strong. I do. I think, though, that the purpose of argumentation is to get a better grasp of truth. To this end, I hope you consider my rebuttal to Lewis, and either reject it on logical grounds, or accept that, although supernatural morality may exist, Lewis' argument for it isn't a good reason to believe in it.

For clarity-i'll post your rebuttle here-"This is a total non-sequitur. Even assuming that there is a thing that "judges between two instincts", we have no grounds to conclude that this third thing is not also an instinct. Much less do we have grounds to say that it must be a law from on high."

It's easier to consider when i'm looking at it-instead of trying to remember it.

It seems to me (though i'm far from a great philosopher) that if we believe that there is something that judges between our instincts-telling us that one is wrong and one is right-then that thing must be more or different than just another instinct.....

Because instincts-by their nature-are neither right nor wrong-they just are. This is why animals cannot do wrong-whatever their instincts tell them to do, is the right thing to do, as far as nature is concerned.

So-i'm saying that i agree with Lewis arguement that if there is something inside us that tells us one instinct is the morally right one to choose at any given time and another is the morally wrong choice-then that something, which functions as a morality gauge, logically would be different than an instinct-which cares nothing for morality but serves a different purpose.

Now, i know that the arguement could be made that this morality gauge is an instinct regardless-but then one would have to ask why such an instinct would develope in humans when it is missing in all other forms of life on earth (that we know of-always room to discover that isn't the case). What purpose would it serve, as far as nature is concerned?

Probably some answers to that-RenegadeofPhunk gave some of his ideas about it-but i don't believe those answers are any more valid than what C.S. Lewis said.

I agree that C.S. Lewis' arguements lead to no 'must be' conclusions-only that they do lead to some valid 'could be' ones.

[bluebell]

But consequences are exactly the issue. We only know that gravity exists because we can observe its consequences. The consequence of stepping off a building are that gravity will pull you quickly to the ground. The consequence of murder is...whatever Karma deems appropriate. In that sense--the only sense that makes any sense--one cannot choose when or when not to "comply" with moral law.

You've actually made a good point (i don't mean that to sound surprising, if it came across that way)-but i still think you are going in circles around the issue.

Which is the plain fact that we can't choose not to obey the law of gravity-and we can choose not to obey moral law.

We have no power to do so-we are forced to obey the law of gravity, but we are not forced to obey any moral laws.

[Mighty Curelom]

To me, biological morality is really quite abstract. If we were as biologically moral as suggested, we would have far less need for laws to regulate human behavior. If murder were not as natural as it seems to be, we'd have far, far less of it.

Now that's an interesting comment. I wonder how you calculate the specific amount of murder we should have if morality was instinctual.

Also, have you ever considered the idea that murders happen because of our moral sense? Consider a typical motive for murder: revenge. The purpose of revenge to impart justice on someone who has wronged you. Revenge killing, therefore, is directly attributable to human moral sense. Another example could be a suicide bomber. The suicide bomber's actions are obviously immoral from our perspective, but from his perspective he's doing something very noble and just. He's combating an enemy that has inflicted injustice on his people; he himself is acting out of a sense of justice.

Societal fabric is a great reason, but completely subjective. Since what constitutes societal good varies from person to person, this ends up being sort of majority-rules morality...the will of the collective.

Indeed...if moral behavior relied heavily on cultural/societal rules, we'd just end up with, as you say, majority rules morality. There would be different rules for different cultures; minorities would be subjugated and persecuted by the majority. And even within discrete societies, not everyone would follow the rules. We'd have to set up some kind of system of justice to deal with those people. But since morality is subjective, the justice system would be in constant flux, one year allowing a particular action and the next making it illegal.

Wait....isn't that exactly what we have?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Now, i know that the arguement could be made that this morality gauge is an instinct regardless-but then one would have to ask why such an instinct would develope in humans when it is missing in all other forms of life on earth (that we know of-always room to discover that isn't the case). What purpose would it serve, as far as nature is concerned?

Probably some answers to that-RenegadeofPhunk gave some of his ideas about it-but i don't believe those answers are any more valid than what C.S. Lewis said.

I'd argue that my answer is 'scientifically' more sound than C.S. Lewis'. But then science has never been 'just' about pure logic...

As far as understanding my exact argument, I think you're perhaps getting hung up on this idea that a particular 'mechanism' has to have been developed for a 'purpose'.

i.e. why would self-aware entites that already have 'instinct' construct 'moral laws'?

This isn't how evolution really works, when you take a particular species and look at ALL it's traits.

...it's not nessesary for 'moral laws' to be beneficial in and of themselves (Although they could be, but it isn't required in principle). In fact, it could equally be simply a by-product of raised awareness - to the point of self-awareness - and intelligence, combined with our inate social structure. (And it is fairly obvious why THOSE traits are benefical to survival).

As long as the benefit is greater than any detremental by-products, then the by-products are 'acceptable'.

[SlackTime]

It seems to me that the analogy being used isn't working well. Gravity is a physical law that we don't understand all too well, so the analogy breaks down very quickly.

Perhaps if we chose a different physical law, the law of equal and opposite reactions.

I have a ball in front of me, I can choose to push it, I can choose not to push it, whichever I do I am still obeying the law. I push it and nothing happens to me, but the ball rolls across the desk. In reality I know that something did happen to me, the force that I used to push the ball acted against me also, and, had I been in a friction free environment, my office chair would have rolled backwards a little bit. But I'm not in such an environment and it seems as though there was no consequence to me for rolling the ball. Instead, the small amount of force used was somehow absorbed by a counter force somewhere between the wheels and the carpet. We don't see the effect, but the effect is there none-the-less.

The moral law is like that as well, we have a choice in front of us, to kill or not to kill. Either way we choose the law will be applied. If I choose to kill there is a consequence, I may not immediately see the consequence, but it will none-the-less be applied as an inherent part of the law. We have been promised that our sins will be forgiven through the instrumentality of the Grace of Christ. Perhaps that Grace will absorb my sin just like the wheel-carpet interaction absorbed the force of my push, but in order to effect that forgiveness I have to trust in Christ and follow His commandments. For in a frictionless environment I will definitely see the result of my transgression.

Anyway, just a thought.

-SlackTime

[bluebell]

just a heads up-i'm going to be out of town for the weekend-so when you don't hear from me again, that's why....

we'll have to pick up where we left off.

[T-Bone]

Murder deprives others of their right to live. I don't want anybody to deprive me of my right to live, and I expect others to wish to have that right as well. Whether we call it the golden rule or what, don't do something to somebody else unless it's ok to do the same thing to you.

If you don't mind getting murdered, then it's ok to murder.

Killing somebody also deprives the victim's family of the victim. I would not want to deprived of the love and companionship of a loved one, and I expect that other families would not want to be deprived of their loved ones.

Along the same lines, if you don't mind seeing your loved ones murdered, then it's ok to murder.

The flip side to that line of reasoning is a homeless person, the mental patient, or an anti-social person who has driven away friends and family. What if the homeless person was mentally deranged and every day was actually horrible experience? Would I be doing him a favor, and society a favor by killing him? What about the anti-social rapist and thug? What if his family wants nothing to do with him, and in fact is sickened by his behavior? What if he hates life but doesn't have the guts to kill himself?

If we follow my earlier line of reasoning too literally, it's possible to think that I condone murder if the person is not a productive member of society. See the next paragraph.

Next, whether we call it a sin or a crime, hurting other people makes me feel bad. I got into a fight when I was a kid, and I still remember how bad it felt even though I won. I have also stolen small things, and I felt guilty for a very long time. Since I don't want to have the guilt of knowing I killed somebody, deprived him of his right to life, and deprived his family of his love and companionship, I would never want to kill somebody.

As far as the anti-social type who is a terror to everybody around him. What if the value of his life is to be a subject for psychologists who study him and find a genetic defect that makes him anti-social. His life has value for future sociopaths who might have the same genetic defect, who can be helped by whatever cure the doctors find through their research. What if countless people can be helped? Would I not be depriving the world of a cure for thousands of people by killing the sociopath that is a terror to society?

Just some thoughts.

T-Bone

[KDBowler]

I think murder is generally wrong. However, there are some on this board that I believe I would make an exception to that rule. So (like the pirate's code) its more of a guidline in that sense!!

Hey...I'm just kidding.

[All-Seeing Eye]

This concept is an interesting export from another thread. I'm interested in understanding your reasons.

Please tell us why you think murder is wrong. Where do you derive the moral imperative (or categorical imperative if you wish) for such a position. Is there such a thing as a moral imperative?

Is it Godly command...magical laws...supernatural authority...social responsibility... human fairness...biology...practical benefit...evolution...communal law...you tell us.

Why is murder wrong? How absolutely provable is your reason?

Regards,

Six

I would prefer to live in a world without murder--especially given that (1) I don't want to be murdered, (2) I don't want anyone that I love to be murdered, and (3) I don't really want to murder.

So, by choosing not to murder, I bring the world one step closer to a world that is free from murder. Those who share my feelings also abstain from murder. We work together to thwart those who do not share our feelings, thereby bringing the world even closer to a world that is free from murder. If we cannot stop murder entirely, we at least seek to make murder as rare as possible.

[Helmuth]

Please tell us why you think murder is wrong.

Self-ownership.

Where do you derive the moral imperative (or categorical imperative if you wish) for such a position. Is there such a thing as a moral imperative?

Yes, there is, and I derive it from self-ownership. If you own yourself, that is, your body, Joe has no right to destroy that body. Your life is YOURS, not Joe's.

Is it Godly command...magical laws...supernatural authority...social responsibility... human fairness...biology...practical benefit...evolution...communal law...you tell us.

I would agree with godly command as one sound basis for the murder prohibition (God is very smart, and His commands are generally good ideas), but add to your list another basis: the long-forgotten-and-dusty (but now enjoying a resurgence) concept of Natural Law. Natural law attempts to discover (not create) laws of interpersonal behavior consistent with the nature of man. The ban against murder has firm roots in natural law. That is, we can observe that one each individual is, in reality, fundamentally autonomous in his choices -- that one individual cannot access another's brain and control the other's body's movements. So, one of our basic natural traits as humans is that we are sovereign individuals. That is, by observable nature, we "de-facto" own ourselves. Thus, murdering, slavery, etc., are institutions opposed to the nature of man because they do not respect this individual self-ownership.

So we can observe that as a practical matter humans own/control themselves, each of our minds independently exerting absolute dominion over its body. Going beyond that, in Mormonism we believe that each individual *should* own himself. That it is *right* for there to be free-will and self-ownership. We believe that God did not simply create us out of nothing, but that each of us were and are eternal, self-existant beings (intelligences). Because of this, we are all free agents, Masters of our Selves, in a way that ex-nihilo creations could never be.

In other Christian religious traditions, wherein God created everything from nothing, clearly He is the only Sovereign in existence and His sovereignity is absolute. Human free-will and choice, in such a paradigm, becomes rather meaningless in my opinion (Thus: Calvinism, the logical conclusion.). If our free-will exists only at the whim of God, who can abrogate it at any time if this "free-will" ceases to please or amuse Him, it does not, in a real sense, exist at all. Objective morality itself becomes meaningless, for if God is the all-powerful, absolute Proprietor, how could any morality apply to Him? Let Him be as capricious or depraved toward His ex-nihilo creations as He likes, it can never be "wrong"; for His Will is the only will that matters in such a state of affairs. Anything He does is automatically moral, for He is the only self-existant being. We have no "rights"; we are just pawns in a chess game.

Mormonism, on the other hand, believes in a universe (or pluriverse if you prefer) filled with billions and billions of self-existent beings. We are self-existent children of God, each eternal and immortal, each with a divine heritage, each able to become Kings and Queens in our own right, each endowed with noble independence and each with the right of free agency. Seeing ourselves like this, it is readily apparent what a gross violation it would be upon the rights of one of our fellow co-eternal beings to trespass against one of his most treasured properties, his life/mortal body, destroying it without his permission.

Why is murder wrong? How absolutely provable is your reason?

I think that *if* one accepts the fundamental axiom of self-ownership, the deductive reasoning that proves aggressive (i.e. non-defensive) killing of other self-owners to be wrong is fairly air-tight.

[cjcampbell]

Because it "retards" the eternal progress of that person...who maybe would have repented (if needed) and recieved salvation. It robs him of "free will" and it is impossible to make restitution for such a grevious sin.

Pa Pa

Glenn L. Pace refuted that at the funeral of a relative who was murdered in Salt Lake. He said that nothing anyone does to us here can deprive us of any blessing that God intends us to receive.

[bluebell]

I know this topic has run it's course, but i promised to come back to respond to the posts addressed to me, so here i am.

I'd argue that my answer is 'scientifically' more sound than C.S. Lewis'. But then science has never been 'just' about pure logic...

It probably is, especially since science in Lewis' day was much different than it is now.

As far as understanding my exact argument, I think you're perhaps getting hung up on this idea that a particular 'mechanism' has to have been developed for a 'purpose'.

i.e. why would self-aware entites that already have 'instinct' construct 'moral laws'?

Ya, i could be hung up on that-and i don't know that much about it all. It just seems, from the very little that i have studied, that things like this (instincts or whatever we want to call them) didn't just form out of no where and serve no purpose at all.

Again, from what i understand (which isn't a lot) there was always a reason for an instinct, even if it didn't make sense to people observing it and even if it didn't necessarily do the species which had it any good in the long term.

My question though isn't to ask why a species with instincts would also have morals, but rather, why did nature (from your point of view) decide to give them morals at all? But that goes back to the idea of purpose in our development.

This isn't how evolution really works, when you take a particular species and look at ALL it's traits.

...it's not nessesary for 'moral laws' to be beneficial in and of themselves (Although they could be, but it isn't required in principle).

I would be interested to learning more about this-can you give me some references? (not a CFR because i don't believe you-just for my own personal study because it's interesting)

In fact, it could equally be simply a by-product of raised awareness - to the point of self-awareness - and intelligence, combined with our inate social structure. (And it is fairly obvious why THOSE traits are benefical to survival).

As long as the benefit is greater than any detremental by-products, then the by-products are 'acceptable'.

I do agree that there are other explanations for the moral law that most humans acknowledge exists among us. No doubt about it.

[bluebell]

I would prefer to live in a world without murder--especially given that (1) I don't want to be murdered, (2) I don't want anyone that I love to be murdered, and (3) I don't really want to murder.

So, by choosing not to murder, I bring the world one step closer to a world that is free from murder. Those who share my feelings also abstain from murder. We work together to thwart those who do not share our feelings, thereby bringing the world even closer to a world that is free from murder. If we cannot stop murder entirely, we at least seek to make murder as rare as possible.

This makes a lot of sense-

But, is it a statement of why murder is inherently wrong-or just an acknowledgement that it's bad for society?

I'm not sure.