Is the use of force inevitable in society?

[moralist]

Law that govern humans in society are made up,  not discovered.

 

ruveyn1

When I consider the law against stealing property which belongs to others, and realize that it is always a beneficial law regardless of the society in which it is utilized, it suggests to me something of a more objective nature than just arbitrarily "made up". To me it is evidence of a natural moral law governing the behavior of humans, much like the natural law of gravity governs the behavior of physical objects.

 

Now, popular collective societal consensus can either choose to uphold the law against stealing... or it can choose reject it and accept the consequences. But it seems to me that that objective moral law is always there just like physical law is...

 

...and the only difference is in how we respond to it.

[ruveyn1]

When I consider the law against stealing property which belongs to others, and realize that it is always a beneficial law regardless of the society in which it is utilized, it suggests to me something of a more objective nature than just arbitrarily "made up". To me it is evidence of a natural moral law governing the behavior of humans, much like the natural law of gravity governs the behavior of physical objects.

 

Now, popular collective societal consensus can either choose to uphold the law against stealing... or it can choose reject it and accept the consequences. But it seems to me that that objective moral law is always there just like physical law is...

 

...and the only difference is in how we respond to it.

If there is such a thing as "natural moral law"  why are there so many moral and ethical systems.  In the realm of physical science you do not find that kind of variety.  There are at most a few plausible systems.  I agree that moral law is constrained by biological necessity.  Any moral doctrine that precludes the maintaining and preservation of human life is bound to fail if for no other reason than its practicioners will become extinct.

 

Even so,  these biological constraints do not uniquely determine moral codes or even trim them down to a few.

[moralist]

If there is such a thing as "natural moral law"  why are there so many moral and ethical systems.

While there are many cultural customs and ethnic traditions, there is unanimity that stealing is morally wrong in all of the successful ethical systems. This is because there are universal moral principles which are larger than any single individual society.

 

 In the realm of physical science you do not find that kind of variety.  There are at most a few plausible systems.  I agree that moral law is constrained by biological necessity.  Any moral doctrine that precludes the maintaining and preservation of human life is bound to fail if for no other reason than its practicioners will become extinct.

 

Even so,  these biological constraints do not uniquely determine moral codes or even trim them down to a few.

Similarly as with physical laws, there is only one plausible system and one implausible system regarding the moral law on stealing. One system accepts it as being true, while the other rejects it as being false.