Let's consider an experiment:Take a baby and have it raise in a very law-strict environment (his  parents are very strict and follow any rules, be it legal, be it  religious, be it moral) but with some freedom (he could start learning  the violin if he was interested into). Now, imagine you have the same   child raised by a family very tolerant, so tolerant that he could do  anything he wants (be it legal, be it illegal).So here is the question:Which scenario can he have a deeper sense of himself, the world and anything else? and is it philosophically right if he finds a fortune (becomes rich, athletic, many friends ...) by mean of scenario #1?My point is that when you are in a very strict law environment, you tend to be channeled in only few possible directions, so your feelings, impulses and so on are extremely lowered in potential: you may become a billionaire by limiting yourself, but it would be not the real you. On the other side, by living with no limits (legal, religious ...), you can discover the real you because you are not affected by society and its laws, but you can hurt yourself and others around you (you may do something dangerous by exposing yourself to human limits).I know there are important factors compromising the result of the experiment, the psychology of the child (this experiment may lead to different results based upon your psychology and how you react to external stimuli), but all I would like are some insights, some tips to go deeper in this argument.
When many laws are too many laws?
social psychology;experimental psychology;social cognition