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 — L'éléphant

Personally I have partaken in 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 at various times. Sexual deviancy is meaningless - in many parts of the world many natural acts are classified this way. Part of the problem is getting agreement as to what constitutes a social crime here. What kind of society are you advocating for. I would rate tax evasion higher than all but 6 and 7.

A society is itself as good as the individuals it's composed of, no? It doesn't seem possible to look at society as distinct from its members, especially when it's mighty convenient to do so? In other words, you can't say that all that's good about America is America (society) and all that's bad about America is Americans (individuals). That doesn't sound fair or even rational. If you claim the beauty of the rose, you must also accept the pain of its thorns.

It makes zero sense, causally.

Vide Self-serving bias.

... 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. — L'éléphant

(Errata (in my message): "we can't say that he does so because he is a moral person")

In your statement "When morality is a voluntary act, you foster irresponsible members of society" the two santences are incongruent/incompatible with each other. (They cannot be connected grammatically.) Please check that.

When this happens you get a monster dictator — L'éléphant

How can you get a monster, or any, dictator when morality is a voluntary act??? It doesn't make sense. Please check that too.

Evil thrives in chaos, monsters in diplomacy. — L'éléphant

What does all this have to do with anything in here?

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

I'm surprised by this statement! There are a lot of things that hold a society together: collective consciousness, morals, traditions, laws ... And morality certainly holds society together, united. If there were no common morals and each one followed his/her own morals, tradition, etc. there would exist just a group of individuals and much disorder. That could not be called a community or society, could it?

Morality is not enforced otherwise people become safe from detour/decrepit. You want morality to remain in the realm of theory, in that case we are at liberty.

There are many cases of morality, eight in total, beginning with pure morality, middling with non biased morality, ending with concise morality. Pure morality is where good and evil are opposite and integer, non biased morality is where good and evil are analytical and precise, and finally concise morality is where good and evil are concise and enforced by intellectuals (do not consider enforcement to be physical).

I don't agree morality should be enforced, the police or the mercenaries who enforce, should only enforce laws written by men, not laws written by gods. Hypothetically in the meta of this topic, godlessness is better, and morality can only be godless if thought paroptic(made up word, to mean ~ in the theoretical realm of experience).

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. — L'éléphant

Last time I ask you to just address the points and avoid the personal. If you want people in your thread discussing with you, and possibly persuading them to your view point, keep to the topic.

The word "relinquish" means "to let go". I did not say gays were out to get power from others. I stated they wanted the power that others held over them to be let go. To be able to marry, and to be able to sleep with who they want without risk of criminal prosecution.

The examples with China and North Korea still stand. If you don't address them, then I'm going to assume they adequately demonstrate the OP does not stand.

A society is itself as good as the individuals it's composed of, no? It doesn't seem possible to look at society as distinct from its members, especially when it's mighty convenient to do so? In other words, you can't say that all that's good about America is America (society) and all that's bad about America is Americans (individuals). That doesn't sound fair or even rational. If you claim the beauty of the rose, you must also accept the pain of its thorns.

It makes zero sense, causally. — Agent Smith

This is true, especially for those on the outside looking in. But it's true even from the inside. Your analysis can also apply to cultures. If a society is made up of many different cultures (which creates it's own culture of diversity), it can be said that bad culture can taint the house. Trying to get them to all get along can create issues on the inside and the outside. Sometimes those on the outside benefit from a house in discord.

To be able to marry, and to be able to sleep with who they want without risk of criminal prosecution. — Philosophim

Bingo! :100: Those seeking equal rights are not trying to take rights away from others, unless those others think they have a right to deprive others of the rights they enjoy. But such thinking is patently wrong.

As a digression, those who deprive others of equal rights would do well to remember that the longer you keep a man down, the more he's going to push-back when he gets up. Best to apologize and give him a hand up. And the sooner the better.

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. — L'éléphant

I believe your facts are wrong. I don't think any doctor is required to perform an abortion anywhere in the US. It certainly wouldn't be a criminal offense. Beyond that, rules vary from state to state. That will become even more true if Roe vs. Wade is overturned.

Are you really just thinking about the person getting an abortion and no one else? That's immoral. — L'éléphant

Says you.

I responded to your previous post to me, but I'm not going to respond to this one. It's clear to me you are just trying to rile things up without putting significant effort or thought into your post. You haven't adequately defined your terms. Your facts are often wrong. You spout your opinions but don't provide any factual, logical, or moral justification. Your spelling and grammar are often incorrect.

The difficulty I'm having is with what I perceive to be as scattered thinking. Your OP says this of morality:

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. — L'éléphant

Then it says this of morality:

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

Then you say:

That's immoral. — L'éléphant

I think you tried to create a box in your OP, a box from which no one could escape an inevitable conclusion in accord with your feelings. As one who has failed to properly think through an OP, I learned how quickly the topic can get away from me. People will run off in all kinds of directions, while others will flail about in a struggle to understand what is being asked of them.

My recommendation is this: rearticulate your question from a point of sincere intellectual curiosity. Spend some time with it, in anticipatory argument in your own head, refining and winnowing and re-wording until such time as you find a concise question that will elicit responsive answers (and, to the extent an answer is off-base, everyone else will know to ignore it as "not getting" what you clearly asked). Even then you will find perceptions and angles that you never anticipated. That is a good thing, and a learning opportunity.

There is nothing wrong with trying to create the box, but you must be aware there is no box from which a philosopher cannot escape.

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 morality of any group of individuals in society is the morality of any group of individuals in society, but not of society itself. By stating the obvious we make clear that we are not talking about society’s right to defend itself, but of a group of people’s right to enforce their morality on others, thereby fracturing society and putting it against itself.

If you claim the beauty of the rose, you must also accept the pain of its thorns. — Agent Smith

:100:

I would rate tax evasion higher than all but 6 and 7. — Tom Storm

:100:

The morality of any group of individuals in society is the morality of any group of individuals in society, but not of society itself. By stating the obvious we make clear that we are not talking about society’s right to defend itself, but of a group of people’s right to enforce their morality on others, thereby fracturing society and putting it against itself. — NOS4A2

If the morality of any group of individuals is not the morality of society itself, then how is a group of people enforcing their morality on others putting society against itself? The reason I ask is, it seems like in the first instance you are divorcing society from the individual/group (in the same way, say, that we might divorce a corporation from a blood-pumping human shareholder), but in the second instance, you have reanimated society into something that can be against itself.

If society is not imbued with a collective morality of it's constituents, then it would not be a society, would it? Even if they are agreeing to disagree, they still have a bond of agreement (i.e. not civil war).

I’m not fond of speaking in such groups and groupthink, but I am capable of it. At any rate, I do not believe such groups have moralities or a collective conscience and are nothing more than loose aggregates of individuals.

This is true, especially for those on the outside looking in. But it's true even from the inside. Your analysis can also apply to cultures. If a society is made up of many different cultures (which creates it's own culture of diversity), it can be said that bad culture can taint the house. Trying to get them to all get along can create issues on the inside and the outside. Sometimes those on the outside benefit from a house in discord. — James Riley

Good to know we agree.

When I read this:

The morality of any group of individuals in society is the morality of any group of individuals in society, but not of society itself. By stating the obvious we make clear that we are not talking about society’s right to defend itself, but of a group of people’s right to enforce their morality on others, thereby fracturing society and putting it against itself. — NOS4A2

And put it into the context of this:

I’m not fond of speaking in such groups and groupthink, but I am capable of it. At any rate, I do not believe such groups have moralities or a collective conscience and are nothing more than loose aggregates of individuals. — NOS4A2

Then I think we might have found a point of agreement. It seems you are saying that society is really just an inanimate tool used by one individual/group or another to enforce their morality on another.

But I'm not sure. Could you clarify your last sentence? Are you saying a loose aggregate of individuals does *not* have moralities or a collective conscience to enforce on others?

If there were no common morals and each one followed his/her own morals, tradition, etc. there would exist just a group of individuals and much disorder. That could not be called a community or society, could it? — Alkis Piskas

Do you know any place where there is just a number of individuals who follow their own morals, tradition etc.?

You should also distinguish a "crime" from a "crime against society." The former is, quite simply, a crime. — James Riley

The United States versus John Doe.

Kahler versus Kansas

I wonder why titles of court cases read like that?

When this happens you get a monster dictator — L'éléphant

How can you get a monster, or any, dictator when morality is a voluntary act??? It doesn't make sense. Please check that too.

Evil thrives in chaos, monsters in diplomacy. — L'éléphant

What does all this have to do with anything in here? — Alkis Piskas

Give me something to bite on here. I can't work with these questions. I mean, where do I begin? Please rephrase your questions. Thanks.

If you want people in your thread discussing with you, and possibly persuading them to your view point, keep to the topic. — Philosophim

Oh no don't mind me. I'm not the one whose belief is being challenged here. Our society backs me up on this. I don't even have to lift a finger. It's there for your pleasurable viewing.

The examples with China and North Korea still stand. If you don't address them, then I'm going to assume they adequately demonstrate the OP does not stand. — Philosophim

I ignored this part because I didn't understand it. Could you explain why you are bringing this up? Somehow when @javra brought up the Nazis, that wasn't surprising to me, or confusing.

The morality of any group of individuals in society is the morality of any group of individuals in society, but not of society itself. By stating the obvious we make clear that we are not talking about society’s right to defend itself, but of a group of people’s right to enforce their morality on others, thereby fracturing society and putting it against itself. — NOS4A2

So are you saying there's no such thing as society? Yet philosophers refer to "society" all the time.

It's clear to me you are just trying to rile things up without putting significant effort or thought into your post. You haven't adequately defined your terms. — T Clark

Truth doesn't need a lot of effort. I mean, like, it's the truth -- why I need to exert too much effort when talking about society baffles me. And yes, I have adequately defined my terms in the OP and throughout this thread. Would you like a very long tirade, or short, sweet responses that accomplish the same goal?

My recommendation is this: rearticulate your question from a point of sincere intellectual curiosity. Spend some time with it, in anticipatory argument in your own head, refining and winnowing and re-wording until such time as you find a concise question that will elicit responsive answers — James Riley

I will do no such thing. I know exactly what I'm doing. It's not scattered thinking. Just try to catch up with what's happening.

I ask you again, why do court cases have titles like People versus John Doe? Or The United States versus John Doe? Or Alabama versus John Doe?

Then you say:

That's immoral. — James Riley

What's wrong with pointing out that all parties involved in an abortion deserve
mention in morality.

I will do no such thing. — L'éléphant

I didn't think you would. Remember what I taught you about ego? No? Didn't think so.

I know exactly what I'm doing. — L'éléphant

No, actually, you don't. You've had your ass handed to you, repeatedly, and yet you keep digging. :rofl:

I ask you again, why do court cases have titles like People versus John Doe? Or The United States versus John Doe? Or Alabama versus John Doe? — L'éléphant

Those are the parties to the case, DOH!

What's wrong with pointing out that all parties involved in an abortion deserves mention in morality. — L'éléphant

Your OP telling us that morality was not part of your consideration in the OP. DOH! That's what's wrong with it. No law, then law; no morality, then morality. Culture = Society. You are all over the place. Not all who wander are lost, but you clearly are.

Hell, just look at your responses to others. Forget me. :roll:

I wonder why titles of court cases read like that? — L'éléphant

So people can tell who the parties are. People name cases like they name cities, people, animals, etc. It's a form of identification.

Those are the parties to the case, DOH! — James Riley

This tells me you're averse to pondering.

Someone should take over this thread.

his tells me you're averse to pondering. — L'éléphant

More nonsense.

Someone should take over this thread. — L'éléphant

You should quit digging.

Personally I have partaken in 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 at various times. — Tom Storm

Personally I have partaken in 5 and 10.