@Erimitus Said
F: If there were not a law saying do not kill. Would you kill?
E: yes
F: I don't think it is the law that keeps us from killing each other. I think it is the fear of losing our own life that prohibits us (naturally constraining).
E: My actions are not motivated by a desire to be good (good for goodness sake) or a desire to not be evil (not do harm). My sole motivation is hope of reward and fear of punishment. I adhere to the norms of society because I must if I what to live in that society. And if there were no constraints in a society, then it would soon be ?Lord of the Flies?. My desires are natural, the fear of punishment is natural, and the hope of reward is natural. Constraints (the rules) are man made (artificial).
F: The law doesn't stop anybody from killing; it only apportions blame when somebody does.
E: Moral law states explicitly or implicitly what is good and what is not. Enforcers enforce the law. Judges determine whether or not the law has been broken. Still others inflict the punishment.
Here are my opinions (beliefs) on morality.
1. There is nothing that is either good or bad that thinking does not make it so.
2. That which is good at one time and place may not be good at another time and place.
I cannot support these opinions with evidence or reasoning so I do not consider them fact. If I understand you correctly, you believe that there is an innate morality. Do you have any evidence or reasoning to support your beliefs?
I don't so much believe in an innate morality, more innate self preservation(if I don't threaten him, there is less chance he will threaten me). In human history there must have been a time when there were people and those people had no laws to govern them(unless you believe the Bible).
The fact that people were/are a succesfull species points to a succesfull avoidance of being killed off before laws were introduced.