Replace “negates” with “diminishes” and, yes, that’s pretty much what I am arguing.

If you make a choice without thinking about it you are not making a moral choice – and that’s what rules require us to do.

Some of the people who would have habitually broken the rule before it existed – immoral people – might decide to take off their shoes with the threat of punishment. Others might continue to break the rule. No net change in morality.

Others – the amoral – may have not been aware that taking their shoes off is better for society. We could encourage them to take off their shoes by education (make them more moral) or by the threat of punishment (appeal to their immoral desires). The latter would result in a net loss of morality.

Over time, the moral reason for taking off shoes would fade from memory. People would teach their children to remove their shoes because “that’s the rule and you will be punished if you do not follow it”. Over time, the opportunities for moral behaviour would diminish.

Once you have made a “no shoes” rule, the no shoes moral obligation is diminished by the moral obligation to “follow the rules”. We no longer take off our shoes because it is the right thing to do. We take them off because that’s the rule.

If we then add a punishment for breaking the “no shoes” rule we would diminish the moral obligation to follow the rules. We would no longer follow the rules because its the right thing to do. We would follow them to avoid punishment.

There is still a moral obligation to take off your shoes but it is eclipsed by the desire to avoid punishment. The result is a society that is guided less by moral obligation and more by immoral desire.

A law is a group of people proclaiming “This is a part of our shared morality”. Stating a moral doesn’t take away the fact that it’s a moral. If you and I separately decided that always walking barefoot while inside was a moral obligation because wearing shoes inside spreads disease, we share that unspoken moral. If we discover this shared morality, then find out that Jeff and Julio agree, we might make it a rule that you had to be barefoot while walking around in Chasing Shadows. It’s still a moral for each of us, even though we’ve codified it and stated it as a “truth” of our community.

I am slowly building up a grand theory that explains why enabling technologies are better than constraining technologies in video games.

Why don’t you buy the no rules part?