So to you individuals have no say within a society? To me, societies don't decide or feel; individuals do. And when the decisions and feelings of individuals interrelate, that's when a society forms.

So to you individuals have no say within a society? — javra

I don't know how you got that from what I said. Individuals have lots of choice. They can choose to commit crimes. They can vote. They have a right to speak (and supposedly to be heard (HA!). etc.

To me, societies don't decide or feel; individuals do. And when the decisions and feelings of individuals interrelate, that's when a society forms. — javra

Yes, and when they decide something is an existential threat to their society, then carrying out that threat can be a crime against that society. That's all I'm saying. My contention that something could be a threat against society was challenged with an argument that such could only occur "within" a society. I think there is here, an unnecessary tripping-up over terminology. Potayto-potahto.

I think there is here, an unnecessary tripping-up over terminology. Potayto-potahto. — James Riley

Could be.

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

Law can "force" morality up to a certain extent. To the extent that it harms others. And even that cannot be always applied. For example, hurting ones feelings, in various ways, cannot be forbidden by law,

(There’s a very good article in the Internet on the subject: "Legal Enforcement of Morality" (
https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199756162.001.0001/acprof-9780199756162-chapter-9). It is quite short and it is worth reading.)

To my opinion, morality cannot be forced. It can only be encouraged, its value and purpose explained, etc. Morality exists only if it comes naturally from or is determined by oneself. If one behaves morally but he is forced to in any way, we can't say that he does so because he is a moral person.

Some examples of crimes against society — L'éléphant

OK, now you passed to crime. This has very little to do --if anything at all-- with morality. It is a pure legal subject.
And the 10 examples you mention are relative: they depend on each society's morals and laws.

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

Tell that to @L'éléphant ...

In what country? — tim wood

Please read this:

Gestational Limits: 43 states prohibit abortions after a specified point in pregnancy, with some exceptions provided. The allowable circumstances are generally when an abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health.

-- Guttmacher Institute, An Overview of Abortion Laws

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Germany lacked society during WWII times? What did they instead have during this time period? — javra

No. This is not what I'm saying at all. You cited Nazi as an example. I said it's not a society.

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? — Outlander

"Outrage" is the term. "Outcry" is another. When the majority of the population have expressed an outrage or outcry, they represent the whole of their society. And the society acts to remedy this public outcry by means of creating a law.
Pointy finials killing wild life when they try to jump over the fence? There's a law now
banning pointy finials around your property.
Second hand smoke more poisonous than smoke? There's a law now banning smoking in common use areas.

You are conflating society with culture. Culture is language, tradition, religion, shared experience, etc. Society is glued together by laws. — James Riley

No I'm not. Unless you mean humans are automatons glued together by laws. Apply culture to these automatons and you get society.

The question is, who has power? Is it 1% of the population, and they oppress the other 99%? Is it 50%? 80%? — Philosophim

The majority of the members of society has the power. So long as they don't use logic, but public outcry and outrage. This so-called power has nothing to do with the 1% or the 99%. It's about what morality is being undermined.

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. — T Clark

And yet the reasoning behind the penal code is the viability of the fetus. If there's a heartbeat, the doctor can decide not to perform an abortion -- yeah this! even if the life of the mother is clearly at stake. The doctor who refuses to perform an abortion is not prosecuted. The law protects the doctor's psychic pain and liberty to decide not to participate in that decision. Oh wait! Are you really just thinking about the person getting an abortion and no one else? That's immoral.

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. — T Clark

Then why can a bigamist be prosecuted even if the other party is a consenting adult? What's the rational behind the law? You married a married person, that bigamist could be charged with a crime even if you didn't file a complaint.

Disturbance of the peace - Well, ok, it's annoying and worthy of restrictions, but is it really a crime against society? — T Clark

Annoying? Disturbance of the peace can include a rocket-propelled grenade fired towards a peaceful celebration of people having a good time.

Violation of helmet and seat belt laws - Sorry. No. — T Clark

Sorry. Yes.

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. — T Clark

Nice try. Good on paper. Are you saying that laws should only be an option, not the rule? On what undiscovered planet it exists? Please invite us.

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. — NOS4A2

Okay, I'm going to break my rule in the OP by mentioning a venn diagram. (Yes, I know I promised no use of other means) But here's the thing -- the majority of the member of society dictate the morality of that society. There are the minority, which include the dissenters, those who engage in crimes against society. And yes they are part of the society. And what did we just accomplish by stating the obvious that they are part of society? We've accomplished saying more words that don't add to this discussion.

The question is, who has power? Is it 1% of the population, and they oppress the other 99%? Is it 50%? 80%?
— Philosophim
The majority of the members of society has the power. So long as they don't use logic, but public outcry and outrage. This so-called power has nothing to do with the 1% or the 99%. It's about what morality is being undermined. — L'éléphant

Untrue. In every government, someone has power over someone else. The state does not dictate morality, they dictate who holds power. Different states around the world allow more people to have influence than other countries. In the United States, a larger swath of people have a say then in many other places in the world. Gays for example, were able to get others to relinquish their power over them, and not be outlawed or denied state marriages.

(There’s a very good article in the Internet on the subject: "Legal Enforcement of Morality" (
https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199756162.001.0001/acprof-9780199756162-chapter-9). It is quite short and it is worth reading.) — Alkis Piskas

I didn't know that exists. Thanks.

To my opinion, morality cannot be forced. It can only be encouraged, its value and purpose explained, etc. Morality exists only if it comes naturally from or is determined by oneself. If one behaves morally but he is forced to in any way, we say that he does so because he is a moral person. — Alkis Piskas

When morality is a voluntary act, you foster irresponsible members of society. When this happens you get a monster dictator. Evil thrives in chaos, monsters in diplomacy.

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

Tell that to L'éléphant ... — 180 Proof

See my post above, to @Alkis Piskas.

Gays for example, were able to get others to relinquish their power over them, and not be outlawed or denied state marriages. — Philosophim

Incorrect. The gays got what they wanted because the public outrage of the majority diminished. Careful now.

Please read this:
Gestational Limits: 43 states prohibit abortions after a specified point in pregnancy, with some exceptions provided. The allowable circumstances are generally when an abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health.
-- Guttmacher Institute, An Overview of Abortion Laws — L'éléphant

Some examples of crimes against society:
1. Abortion — L'éléphant

When you say that abortion is a crime against society, you clearly do not mean that abortion is a crime against society. What you mean is that abortion is legal, but restricted. I.e., some abortions at some times in some places under some conditions are violations of laws in force at those places. That is exactly not any sort of crime against society. Why did you say it was when apparently you know perfectly well it is not? Lying? Bluffing? Gas-lighting? Or just you do not know what you're talking about?

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

Also known as "society". — baker

Arguably.

When you say that abortion is a crime against society, you clearly do not mean that abortion is a crime against society. What you mean is that abortion is legal, but restricted. I.e., some abortions at some times in some places under some conditions are violations of laws in force at those places. That is exactly not any sort of crime against society. Why did you say it was when apparently you know perfectly well it is not? Lying? Bluffing? Gas-lighting? Or just you do not know what you're talking about? — tim wood

I do mean it.

Then you're making nonsense. Read your own remarks!

Then you're making nonsense. Read your own remarks! — tim wood

You go first. Read my own remarks, if you haven't.

You are conflating society with culture. Culture is language, tradition, religion, shared experience, etc. Society is glued together by laws.
— James Riley
No I'm not. Unless you mean humans are automatons glued together by laws. Apply culture to these automatons and you get society. — L'éléphant

Actually, yes, you are. And no, I don't mean humans are automatons glued together by laws. You don't apply culture to your straw man automatons to get society. Culture is independent of society. You need to study your civics, sociology, poly sci, etc.

I know how hard it is for you to be wrong, but you should be used to it by now. Your OP was an abomination (and no, I'm not talking about your caveats and exceptions; I'm talking about the internal inconsistencies between written (regulation) and unwritten (culture)) but I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and teach you. But you refuse the education and go for the Jello-on-the-wall routine. Sad, really. When you find yourself in a hole, you should really quit digging.

You go first. Read my own remarks, if you haven't. — L'éléphant

I did, troll. I referenced them just above.

I know how hard it is for you to be wrong, but you should be used to it by now. — James Riley

I don't gain anything by pretending to be right. That's bullshit.

Culture is independent of society. — James Riley

News to me.

I did, troll. I referenced them just above. — tim wood

Mmm. Name calling. No need to lose your cool. You could file a complaint to the moderators.

Gays for example, were able to get others to relinquish their power over them, and not be outlawed or denied state marriages.
— Philosophim
Incorrect. The gays got what they wanted because the public outrage of the majority diminished. Careful now. — L'éléphant

Careful now? Is this a discussion or an ego trip for you? Just make your points without snark. Prior to the legalization of gay marriage, homosexuality was a crime in many states. The power of the state controlled held a sword over their lives. Fortunately in America, we have an educated society, and people began to question whether it should be a crime. Amazingly, America decided to relinquish power over gays, and let them be free to be who they are.

That required changes and limitations of the law, not just moral outrage. In other countries, moral outrage does not necessarily change the law, and the majority can easily be oppressed by a minority. Do you think North Korea is a country run by morality? No. It is state power over individuals to benefit a minority.

You said:

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

But I've given examples of societies where this isn't the case. If you can explain to me how North Korea and China are enforcing morality, you'll have a point. Otherwise, you don't.

I don't gain anything by pretending to be right. That's bullshit. — L'éléphant

Sure you do. It a narcissist/ego thing. Otherwise you just admit you were wrong.

News to me. — L'éléphant

I know. That's why I'm trying to teach you.

What name do you give to someone who makes a categorical claim, himself provides references that entirely undercut that claim, refuses to account, and insists on his nonsensical claim? "Troll" is a gentle courtesy, and it appears to be exactly right. But I can expand....

Amazingly, America decided to relinquish power over gays, and let them be free to be who they are. — Philosophim

Relinquish power over gays? Listen to yourself. Do not talk to me about ego trip while talking nonsense like this, please. Gays were not out to get power from others. They wanted to be treated as equals.

What name do you give to someone who makes a categorical claim, himself provides references that entirely undercut that claim, refuses to account, and insists on his nonsensical claim? — tim wood

Okay, I'll level with you then. What is that reference that undercuts what claim?

Okay, I'll level with you then. What is that reference that undercuts what claim? — L'éléphant

Please read this:
Gestational Limits: 43 states prohibit abortions after a specified point in pregnancy, with some exceptions provided. The allowable circumstances are generally when an abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health.
-- Guttmacher Institute, An Overview of Abortion Laws
— L'éléphant

Some examples of crimes against society:
1. Abortion
— L'éléphant — tim wood

And that first quote, sir, is to point out to you that it required a life or safety of the person seeking abortion (I try to avoid using "woman" here as I think maybe men could be pregnant seeking abortion as well) in order for the state to loosen the restriction on abortion. What would it take for a state to allow some form of abortion? It has to be equally painful -- the life of the abortion-seeker. And mind you, there are pro-abortion who believes that it doesn't have to reach that point where a person's life is in danger for the state to allow the abortion without condition.
The fact that the state had to put a condition for a legal abortion means it is still restrictive.

The fact that the state had to put a condition for a legal abortion means it is still restrictive. — L'éléphant

A legal abortion is not a crime against society. You should also distinguish a "crime" from a "crime against society." The former is, quite simply, a crime. Whereas the latter can be interpreted as a "crime" or more generally as "an affront to society." Based upon all the limits you put in your OP it is reasonable to believe you meant the latter. (Or, more particularly, an affront to or a crime against a cultural norm.)