Yes. Any constraints were psychological or cultural (including religion).Fooloso4 wrote: ↑October 28th, 2018, 9:20 pmGE Morton:
Are you claiming that prior to the development of sound rational moral theory there were no moral constraints on cooking and eating the baby?The only constraints morally binding on agents are those derived from a sound moral theory. That we sometimes refrain from doing immoral things for other, non-rational reasons doesn't change that.
Morality, like law, is a product of civilization, just as are science, politics, and the rest of philosophy.
Answered above.When do you think the development of sound moral theory occurred?
Was there no distinctions between right and wrong or good and bad prior to that point?
Not right or wrong in the contemporary moral sense, i.e., in commanded or forbidden by some moral principle. But, of course, various acts were forbidden because they offended the sensibilities of other members of the community (or the gods).
You have stated that at least with the question of eating babies it is “hard wired” so it cannot be a matter of convention.
Correct. Humans, like many other animals, are instinctively protective of their young.