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
(Errata (in my message): "we can't say that he does so because he is a moral person")... 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
How can you get a monster, or any, dictator when morality is a voluntary act??? It doesn't make sense. Please check that too.When this happens you get a monster dictator — L'éléphant
What does all this have to do with anything in here?Evil thrives in chaos, monsters in diplomacy. — L'éléphant
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?Nothing needs to "hold society together". Society just exists, or doesn't exist, depending on one's ideological outlook. — baker
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
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
To be able to marry, and to be able to sleep with who they want without risk of criminal prosecution. — Philosophim
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
Are you really just thinking about the person getting an abortion and no one else? That's immoral. — 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. — L'éléphant
What holds together a society is the enforcement of morality through the use of force (the law). — L'éléphant
That's immoral. — L'éléphant
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. — NOS4A2
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
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
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
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
The United States versus John Doe.You should also distinguish a "crime" from a "crime against society." The former is, quite simply, a crime. — James Riley
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.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
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.If you want people in your thread discussing with you, and possibly persuading them to your view point, keep to the topic. — 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 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
So are you saying there's no such thing as society? Yet philosophers refer to "society" all the time.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
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?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
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.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
What's wrong with pointing out that all parties involved in an abortion deserveThen you say:
That's immoral. — James Riley
I will do no such thing. — L'éléphant
I know exactly what I'm doing. — L'éléphant
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
What's wrong with pointing out that all parties involved in an abortion deserves mention in morality. — L'éléphant
I wonder why titles of court cases read like that? — L'éléphant
This tells me you're averse to pondering.Those are the parties to the case, DOH! — James Riley
Personally I have partaken in 5 and 10.Personally I have partaken in 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 at various times. — Tom Storm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.