sleeper;1385154 wrote:I find it to be a broken question because there would be social reprocussions since killing someone else who have a material impact on your ability to achieve happiness in life. For example, if I kill someone from family "Y", they might have a vested interest in making sure I don't have a happy life. In reverse, if I prevent someone from family "Y" from getting killed they will likely have a vested interest in keeping me happy and protected.
You assume the knowledge of the killer in your example. You might have a vested interest in not being KNOWN as a killer. However, that is not the same as having a vested interest in not actually being a killer. As such, you've merely exchanged legal repercussions (assuming you get caught) with social repercussions (again, assuming you get caught).
And consider if Family Y has little influence, and by killing a member of their family, you wind up with great influence. As such, they have no realistic means by which they can do anything to inconvenience you.
Would you still have a reason not to kill?
sleeper;1385154 wrote:There is a social fabric that binds us as human and being religious accomplishes none of that sort.
This social fabric only suggests an arbitrary morality is common if and only if it is possibly observed by the rest of the community. In other words, it doesn't establish a morality. It established what you're not allowed to be CAUGHT doing.
sleeper;1385154 wrote:In fact, being religious inbreeds a sense of division since one is simply an infidel if they don't maintain the same belief system.
This is incorrect.
Would you like me to cite defeaters of that statement, or will you acknowledge that it was an incorrect statement?
