Constraints on anything.
The idea of what is moralized and what isn't.
Everyone has differing opinions on whats right and what isn't. If your opinion conflicts with the majority, chances are you'll end up in jail or dead. Take Charles Manson for example, by our definition the things he did were absolutely despicable, but he doesn't believe in the same sense of "right and wrong" as the majority and that's where the conflict lies.
In general, we our conditioned to follow rules that benefit society as a whole. Don't kill, don't steal, don't rape, etc. These things are "wrong". Now, if you went back a few centuries, you would find things were alot different. We are constantly re-calibrating the machine that is our society so that it's comfortable for the mainstream. If, for example, mainstream consisted of morbidly obese people (and some may argue that in the US, it does), then the idea of eating tons and tons of fattening food wouldn't have such a negative connotation. The term "fat" would be a compliment.
Compare us to the ancient Romans. They lived extremely decadent lifestyles, and it was considered attractive to be fat and pasty because this indicated you were part of the upper rung of society. As we advance, we discovered the connection between overeating and poor health, and it's just one more thing we integrated out of our ever evolving concept of an ideal society.
|