Enforcement of Morality

L'éléphant

This topic is not about the ontological nature of morality. So Kant's metaphysics of morals, for example, has nothing to do with this. This is not about the objective or subjective nature of moral principles. Any argument or reasoning that cites this notion is irrelevant here. It is also irrelevant whether you use logic, math, symbols, or rational argument in whatever you want to say here. As I will explain below, it is about society, the majority, and the individual (the private individual) components of morality.

So, as we might frequently forget, a society apparently has a right to preserve its integrity. And by integrity, I mean the unwritten format that a human population adopts by creating regulations, institutions, establishing economic interests, religious beliefs, etc.

A society exists, but not by physical boundary, or by a government establishing its territory. You can't look at the map and point to a society -- if you tell me you could by looking at a map, then you're not understanding what a society is.

Then, what can threaten a society's integrity? As it turns out, it is not always the violence, explosion, combustion, and upheavals that can be blamed for a society's demise. (I agree that "demise" is suspect. Can a society actually die and be reduced to ashes?)

What holds together a society is the enforcement of morality through the use of force (the law). You get enough dissent and nonconformity to your society's morals, you kill your society. That's why a society has a right to defend itself from such nonconformity, according to the majority of the population. If you don't agree with this, continue reading below.

Some examples of crimes against society:

1. Abortion
2. Sexual deviance
3. Bigamy and polygamy
4. Disturbance of the peace
5. Violation of helmet and seat belt laws
6. Cruelty to animals
7. Domestic violence
8. Desecration of a flag and public monuments
9. Graffiti
10. Littering and loitering

James Riley

What holds together a society is the enforcement of morality through the use of force (the law). You get enough dissent and nonconformity to your society's morals, you kill your society. That's why a society has a right to defend itself from such nonconformity, according to the majority of the population. If you don't agree with this, continue reading below. — L'éléphant

I don't agree with that and I kept reading, below. Society is like culture: Yes, it can die. But it can also change. Societies change more often than not. Once they have changed, that does not mean they are dead. They are just different. And society does not have a right to defend itself from nonconformity, especially when society has a Bill of Rights protecting minorities from the tyranny of a majority.

Abortion may be a crime against *some* societies, but not all. In the U.S., for instance, it is not a crime against society.

L'éléphant

And society does not have a right to defend itself from nonconformity, especially when society has a Bill of Rights protecting minorities from the tyranny of a majority. — James Riley

And yet, the list of illegal activities is long.

tim wood

Some examples of crimes against society:

1. Abortion — L'éléphant

According to whom?

James Riley

And yet, the list of illegal activities is long. — L'éléphant

It is, but in the U.S., none on the list can be enforced without due process of law. See Bill of Rights.

When you say:

And by integrity, I mean the unwritten format that a human population adopts by creating regulations, institutions, establishing economic interests, religious beliefs, etc. — L'éléphant

you forget that "unwritten format" must be written. Otherwise, it's not worth the paper it's not written on.

What holds together a society is the enforcement of morality through the use of force (the law). — L'éléphant

So, when you say

the list of illegal activities is long. — L'éléphant

it means nothing. Laws change, cultures change, societies change.

I'm off to bed. See you mon yonna.

L'éléphant

According to whom? — tim wood

According to the penal code, which is designed to protect society.

javra

Abortion may be a crime against *some* societies, but not all. In the U.S., for instance, it is not a crime against society. — James Riley

A crime within some societies, yea, OK; but a crime against society? How so? Off the top of my head as source, the movie “Freakonomics” makes the case that having a pro-life-quality mentality (my term for freedom of choice to abort fetuses) leads to the improved quality of a society.

3. It's Not Always a Wonderful Life : Narrated by Melvin Van Peebles and directed by Eugene Jarecki, this segment explores the question of what led to a decline in the urban crime rate in the US during the mid- to late 1990s. The authors of Freakonomics suggest that a substantial factor was the 1973 US Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, which permitted women to have legal abortions, leading to more wanted children with better upbringings. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics_(film)#Segments

And this turns the tables into something like, “the illegalization of abortion is detrimental to society and, thereby, a crime* against society’s wellbeing”.

* Crime as in “iniquity” rather than “violations of law”. To illustrate with a simplistic example, Nazis were law-abiding citizens within their own society, but their society's laws were often criminal … and violations of these criminal laws moral.

L'éléphant

Nazis were law-abiding citizens within their own society, but their society's laws were often criminal … and violations of these criminal laws moral. — javra

The question is, Did the Nazis have a society or something else?

javra

The question is, Did the Nazis have a society or something else? — L'éléphant

A society.

L'éléphant

you forget that "unwritten format" must be written. Otherwise, it's not worth the paper it's not written on. — James Riley

No society had written a format, like a software program, where it mapped everything according to its needs and wants.

L'éléphant

A society. — javra

It was a military arrangement, not by the majority of the people, but by the Nazis. So, no it wasn't a society.

javra

↪L'éléphant

That military arrangement or whatnot was democratically voted into power (this by the majority of the people). So your argument doesn't hold.

L'éléphant

That military arrangement or whatnot was democratically voted into power (this by the majority of the people). So your argument doesn't hold. — javra

I'd like to take a moment to say that, I did cover my ass when I said in my OP that there's an unwritten format adopted by the population. Did the German society die, or the Nazi party died?

L'éléphant

it means nothing. Laws change, cultures change, societies change. — James Riley

It means the whole world. Look what happened to Detroit, Michigan.

javra

↪L'éléphant

First off, my bad; just double-checked and I misspoke:

Although the Nazis won the greatest share of the popular vote in the two Reichstag general elections of 1932, they did not have a majority. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany#Nazi_seizure_of_power

They were still pretty popular among voters, though.

Did the German society die, or the Nazi party died? — L'éléphant

"Died" doesn't seem to be an adequate term for the Nazis. There's quite the resurgence going on. In Germany, in the US, I'm sure in other places as well. And, among the resurgent neo-Nazi folk, there's a fairly strong societal bond.

How do you define society, exactly? I'm myself thinking of the typical dictionary senses when I use the term.

L'éléphant

How do you define society, exactly? I'm myself thinking of the typical dictionary senses when I use the term. — javra

Loosely, a population or a group of people with structured or ordered existence bound by morality (whether religious or secular or both). Structured in the sense that they perform economic, educational, and social activities.

javra

Loosely, a population or a group of people with structured or ordered existence bound by morality (whether religious or secular or both). Structured in the sense that they perform economic, educational, and social activities. — L'éléphant

OK, Nazi Germany had the structure you speak of with the iffy point being that of "bounded by morality". The Nazis certainly viewed themselves as moral, noble even. So this will likely wind down into what the nature of morality actually consists of - thereby allowing some distinction between true morality and false notions of morality. Although I strongly lean on the objective morality side of things, this isn't something I'm currently interested in debating. The added caveat that a society is bounded by morality is new to me, though. Thanks for sharing.

Still, in ordinary understandings of "society", one could say that the German society underwent massive transitions from pre-WWII times, though WWII times, to post-WWII times .. all the while remaining "the German society". If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Germany lacked society during WWII times? What did they instead have during this time period?

Wayfarer

What holds together a society is the enforcement of morality through the use of force (the law). You get enough dissent and nonconformity to your society's morals, you kill your society. That's why a society has a right to defend itself from such nonconformity, according to the majority of the population. — L'éléphant

That sounds rather like a prescription for reactionary authoritarianism.

180 Proof

What holds together a society is the enforcement of morality through the use of force (the law). — L'éléphant

Morality (reinforceable eusocial habits) and Law (enforceable contracts / regulations) are independent of one another because they are divergent as often as they are convergent depending upon the regime which makes the laws. There are countless historical examples of 'immoral laws' (e.g. slavery) and 'illegal morality' (e.g. abolition). On the contrary, L'éléphant, bottom-up morality usually holds a society together in spite of the top-down regime of laws (and law-enforcement).

baker

That sounds rather like a prescription for reactionary authoritarianism. — Wayfarer

Also known as "society".

baker

What holds together a society is the enforcement of morality through the use of force (the law). You get enough dissent and nonconformity to your society's morals, you kill your society. That's why a society has a right to defend itself from such nonconformity, according to the majority of the population. — L'éléphant

Sure. But it's not the majority who has the say; it's those with power who have the say, and they can do that even if they are statistically a minority.

Those with power can also act directly against the principles of morality, and this will have no adverse effect on society and will not be considered a breach of moral principles.

On the contrary, L'éléphant, from the bottom-up morality usually holds a society together in spite of the top-down regime of laws (and law-enforcement). — 180 Proof

Nothing needs to "hold society together". Society just exists, or doesn't exist, depending on one's ideological outlook.

Philosophim

↪L'éléphant

Great thread.

I would specify a bit further.

What holds together a society is the enforcement of morality through the use of force (the law). You get enough dissent and nonconformity to your society's morals, you kill your society. — L'éléphant

You do not kill your society if the laws of society are not followed. You disrupt those who are in POWER in society if the laws are disrupted.

The question is, who has power? Is it 1% of the population, and they oppress the other 99%? Is it 50%? 80%? In your case, we could break this down law by law. Perhaps a law protects the 80% of society, like the seat belt law. Perhaps a law protect 5% of society like the abortion law. And so and so forth.

In the end, it is about who holds power in a society. A better question is, who should hold the power in society? Intuitively, I believe those who allow the greatest protection and power to the safe people of society are those we should allow to have power. Giving anarchists power would hurt most of society for example. But enslaving a portion of society, who would do no harm on their own, for the benefit of another portion would be a poor society.

How about denying gay people weddings? Seems like that's a society that is oppressive. While power can be protective to those in charge, it can also enable those in charge to do evil as well. There is a joy in the black area of the human heart in holding power over another, just for the satisfaction of it after all.

tim wood

According to whom?
— tim wood
According to the penal code, which is designed to protect society. — L'éléphant

In what country?

Outlander

It is also irrelevant whether you use logic ... or rational argument in whatever you want to say here. As I will explain below, it is about society, the majority, and the individual (the private individual) components of morality. — L'éléphant

That's.. interesting. Logically a democratic society is based on the logic of the majority, however unrefined, base, or simply counterproductive it is to said majority's own wants and needs. You say people do things not because they think they're the best course of action but simply because the guy next to them seems to think so. Kind of a "if all your friends jumped off a cliff" approach to society. It's a fair claim though one might (mistakenly) assume you state that an educated person would refuse to use that education (again no matter how poor, misguided, counterproductive or diametrically opposed to the advancement or placation of wants and needs. both personal and collective) .. even if one fully plans to expand and utilize on it later but simply can't at the moment due to again, being outvoted, and so to remain "in the game" as it were has to "just say OK" again simply for that moment. Is that right?

Or perhaps that people often use their emotions or their personal sense of "what feels right" or even just feels good, more so than what (they know?) logically is best, ie. smoking cigarettes or drinking regularly? A society of myopia, basically. Fair points either way. Plenty of evidence to back it up.

James Riley

It means the whole world. Look what happened to Detroit, Michigan. — L'éléphant

That means nothing.

James Riley

No society had written a format, like a software program, where it mapped everything according to its needs and wants. — L'éléphant

You are conflating society with culture. Culture is language, tradition, religion, shared experience, etc. Society is glued together by laws. We have a Declaration of Independence, Constitution and all the laws stemming therefrom. We even had a societal/cultural common law. So yes, society does have a written format. But to use your software program analogy, ours is an AI format, changing and learning over time.

James Riley

A crime within some societies, yea, OK; but a crime against society? How so? — javra

I already stipulated that the U.S. permitted abortion so the Freakonomics example does not apply. There might very well be other societies that would be destroyed if abortion was allowed. I don't know, I'm not a world societal expert. But I would suppose they might be Roman Catholic societies where abortion is anathema to their very being. In that case, abortion would be a crime against that society, even if it reduced crime. In fact, I've often argued that just how free a society is can be measured by the ability to get away with crime.

In any even, I think it is subjective to determine that eliminating crime (through abortion or otherwise) is entirely a pro-societal marker, and that increasing crime is de facto anti-societal. There are grey areas and we (individually) don't get to choose what is pro or anti-society. Society does that.

T Clark

Some examples of crimes against society — L'éléphant

Well, let's see...

1. Abortion - Abortion is a bad thing. We should do what we can reasonably to reduce the numbers, but not by enacting legal restrictions. It is not a crime and it is not the problem. It should be legal.

2. Sexual deviance - I have a feeling that what you call sexual deviance and what I do are not the same. Be that as it may, sexual practices that don't harm others should not be illegal.

3. Bigamy and polygamy - I can see the value in having rules in this regard, but I don't see this as a crime against society.

4. Disturbance of the peace - Well, ok, it's annoying and worthy of restrictions, but is it really a crime against society?

5. Violation of helmet and seat belt laws - Sorry. No.

6. Cruelty to animals - Reasonable rules are good. On the other hand, I enjoy eating meat.

7. Domestic violence - Of course. And all the rest of the violence too.

8. Desecration of a flag and public monuments - There should be reasonable restrictions on damage to public or private property. Otherwise, it's none of society's business.

9. Graffiti - Ditto.

10. Littering and loitering - Ditto

You seem to have forgotten that society has methods of social control other than legal restrictions. The law should be the enforcement method of last resort.

NOS4A2

↪L'éléphant

Those who engage in your "crimes against society" are also a part of society. So, in truth, what is being proposed here is a far more ruinous crime, namely, a form of slavery: some members of society get to rule over the other members of society.

javra

In any even, I think it is subjective to determine that eliminating crime (through abortion or otherwise) is entirely a pro-societal marker, and that increasing crime is de facto anti-societal. There are grey areas and we (individually) don't get to choose what is pro or anti-society. Society does that. — James Riley

As a counter, if crime is injurious, and if the individuals that make up a society don't like getting injured, then reducing crime can only be pro-societal - i.e. pro the cohesion of individuals that make up the given society. Also, societies are nothing else but groups of individuals that voluntarily interrelate; so individuals, to me, do have their say; its in part how societies change over time.

But yea, I do agree its a murky area. As a topic related to the OP, there's such a thing as honor among thieves. Here, the thieves form a society within a larger society and perpetuate crime against the larger society but, within their own sub-society, live by often stringent moral codes. To ask, "are the thieves then moral" is, it seems, too simplistic a question.

To be transparent, though, in my previous post I was mainly intending to intimate that freedom of abortion cannot be an iniquity (a crime in this sense) against a society, though it can be a violation of the society's laws (a crime in this sense) if the society does outlaw abortion. But I gather there's other threads for this were I to care to debate it.

James Riley

As a counter, if crime is injurious, and if the individuals that make up a society don't like getting injured, then reducing crime can only be pro-societal - i.e. pro the cohesion of individuals that make up the given society. Also, societies are nothing else but groups of individuals that voluntarily interrelate; so individuals, to me, do have their say; its in part how societies change over time. — javra

Societies get to decided which violations of what laws present an existential threat to the society. Homicide is usually a no-go. But we have exceptions, where the right to life is forfeit, or fails to vest, or where the taking thereof is subject to different levels of punishment. Society let's it's members, and non-members, know the general essence of itself through it's laws and punishment.

I know where the U.S. stands (or doesn't stand) but I'm not willing to say it is impossible for another society to feel an existential threat from abortion.

Enforcement of Morality

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions