>Why is there a requirement for consequences to act moral? See, most people don't want to murder and kill other people. For them we don't need to make laws say

>Why is there a requirement for consequences to act moral? See, most people don't want to murder and kill other people. For them we don't need to make laws saying murder is wrong and we'll hook your ass to ole'sparky if you proceed to do it. For you, we do need to make that law so you have to think twice about carving people up like cantaloupes, and for dealing with those that do break the law. A lot of law is the encoding of moral and ethical behavior. We didn't have the law, some people acted immoral, then we made the law to punish said behavior. For many people this pushed them away from the grey area between legal behavior that is immoral because if they act unethical new laws would be developed to punish them further (and people wonder why we have so many laws in the first place, quit acting like shitheads and we won't). >then I'm not being good and it's all transactional. Hurray, you've realized there is no god and the physical world we live in is built on cause and effect, thank you for catching up to the 20th century. Cause: "you act good" Effect: "I don't crack open your head and eat the tasty goo inside while screaming like a primate, since acting good allows us to build societies that have benefits for us all"