[KillerGremlin]

Let me further expand again.

We need to make a philosophical distinction right away: Are there intrinsic and natural "morals." Assuming, hypothetically, there in no religion, no God, no divinity: are there natural moral rules?

I would argue yes. Life is intrinsic to living things. Therefore, killing a living thing compromises the natural right to life.

Let's assume that killing is morally objectionable and should be taken seriously. Let's also ignore killing for food and war. Remember, this is hypothetical.

I strongly oppose the 10 Commandments because they do not stand up to the empirical weight that humans do not have free will. Let me say outright, most people have a set of instilled rational beliefs, and "know" better than to act against them. People who fit into "normal" social constructs don't kill other people. Now, there are mounds and mounds of empirical evidence that suggest that "normal" people have a set of genetic predispositions and behavior predispositions. Odds are most people here don't have Gacy's brain damage. Odds are most people here weren't abused in such a way that has caused them to feel the need, or actually act on the urge to kill another human being.

Now, some of us have had sex, stolen, done drugs, or done other things that question the 10 Commandments. But I feel like this is more of a reflection on the aging church policies. None of us here have killed people (ignoring food and war), and I would attribute that to normal social-psycho upbringings.

Time after time, empirical after empirical after empirical study has shown that people do not control their choices outside of their "normal" sense of perception. Heroin addicts cannot control their addiction without tons of support, medication, and help. Food acts cannot control eating. People with anxiety or schizophrenia cannot put a lens of "normal" perception over their own skewed view. And even using the phrase "skewed view" makes me judgmental. Psychology and medicine has a holistic and humanistic philosophy, and has had that view for a long time. Psychology isn't about treating someone, it is about making their life comfortable. If you have anxiety, but live a comfortable life: then you are not abnormal. We would define "abnormal" as disruptive to daily functioning and healthy living. And even that is a tough philosophical point in medicine.

The brain in a pure sense is a clean slate. We add genetics into the equation and the brain now has certain characteristics that will influence development. You add behavior and those behaviors influence the outcome of the individual. My own behaviors, perceptions, and experiences are the result of my genetics, and the experiences I have had in my life. If you changed just a few external stimuli or experiences, I may never have been the video game loving person I am today. If you change a few experiences and stimuli, John Wayne Gacy may not have raped and killed 33 teenagers.

The point is, I reject the traditional notion of free will for the sound empirical reality which is that we are largely not in control of our behaviors. I would argue by extension: my decision to fit into society's "normal moral construct" and not kill people is the result of a fairly normal upbringing. There are "standards" and "practices" to develop normal humans. There is a sensitive window to learn language, for example. We send children to school. We tell parents not to rape or abuse their kids. We try to control for behavior; so much so we would punish a parent molesting their child, because it goes against the "normal construct" we have established in society. Some parents who do a perfect job raising their child still have issues: maybe it is genetics, maybe it is external stimuli or experiences from another source. The point is, it is something.

I don't make the choice to not kill people because I have some sort of moral compass. I make the choice not to kill people because I have a complex view and understanding, as imparted on me from other people, my upbringing, my genetic backdrop, and everything else that I have experienced up until this point.

I don't believe you could honestly hold someone to 10 Commandments unless you were a judgmental, non-loving, non-empathetic God. Understanding what we know about development and the brain today, we can see that many people make the choices they make due to their environmental circumstances. And when I say "environmental circumstances," I refer to the Epigenetic realization that your brain and YOU are made up of experiences and neural paths.

To place judgement on someone who was abused, or is genetically susceptible to eating too much sugar or using heroin, is just shallow and uneducated.

On a slightly related note, I feel like there is either a lack of empathy in posts in this thread...or a deflection of empathy. Forwarding would-be-empathy to religion doesn't help make the world a better place.