I was only saying I don’t think you were necessarily speaking about defending society, but another group, the State.

Presuming that dissent and nonconformity will be punished, this necessarily leads to the censorship and punishment of some members of society, probably a minority, for the benefit of another. If the minority is a part of society, their suppression will only serve to suppress a part of society rather than defend the whole of it. It reminds me of the expression “Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face”.

As such, far from a society adopting the unwritten format, it will need to be perpetually forced. How a society should force such a format on itself is not made clear but we do know we have tried to change man with law, compulsion, and religions of various kinds throughout history, and the result is nothing to be proud of.

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

I don't know what do you mean exactly by "place" (it's too general) but the following may qualify:
Criminals, anarchists, hermits, savages, ... Also, any informal and/or temporary group (persons garthered together): a group of boys, students, demonstrators, spectators in theaters, madmen in asylums, and so on.

Give me something to bite on here. I can't work with these questions. I mean, where do I begin? — L'éléphant

You can't reply to all questions in a single answer of course! :smile: But TPF offers a great method of tackling each question/point on its own: You highlight one question/point, click on "Quote" and answer that question/point. Then you highlight another question/point, click on "Quote" and answer that question/point. And so on.

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. — L'éléphant

But you said,

Then, what can threaten a society's integrity? — L'éléphant

A society, does not mean our society alone. If you would like to change your viewpoint to being only our society, that's fine, but that is not what your original topic implied. If that is so, I'll drop the China and North Korean comparisons.

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

Your entire premise is that our society, (I'm assuming America now) creates laws to enforce morality. Who's morality? It can't be Christian morality, because Jesus stated you should sell everything you have and follow him. A morality based on Christianity would eliminate poverty and channel the extra wealth to keeping society free from degradation or sin. That is clearly not what American law does.

Many laws, tax laws for example, benefit the wealthy over the less wealthy. Is that moral, even apart from Christianity? Or how about a law against smoking marijuana that can get you put in jail for holding a few grams (and disproportionately puts blacks in jail), when speeding at a potentially lethal level for both you and those around you is just a fine?

The nature of Democracy is that plenty of people get a say. And it turns out that while many people have different views of morality, very few people seem to want to sacrifice their own comfort and money to help those who could really use a hand. Many laws are about preserving power over other people, and in a Democracy, that is much more difficult to do.

So you have a problem with your premise. You've stated the entire premise of now, our society, is to enforce morality. And yet, I can see several instances of laws that do not appear moral to me. It does not deny that there are certainly some laws that are in place due to some cultures or universal morality, but you cannot state it is the primary reason for laws, when the law is cluttered with so many instances in which morality does not matter.

How a society should force such a format on itself is not made clear but we do know we have tried to change man with law, compulsion, and religions of various kinds throughout history, and the result is nothing to be proud of. — NOS4A2

Well, not having a religion is not a crime against society. But if you actively sabotage the peaceful congregation of religious people -- you know, vandalizing churches and harassing church goers, you deserve to be punished.

You highlight one question/point, click on "Quote" and answer that question/point. Then you highlight another question/point, click on "Quote" and answer that question/point. And so on. — Alkis Piskas

I tried. The result is that I was still confused by your question. I just don't know how to answer it. Apparently, the ability to follow a technical procedure doesn't equate to correct understanding of the question.

Many laws, tax laws for example, benefit the wealthy over the less wealthy. Is that moral, even apart from Christianity? Or how about a law against smoking marijuana that can get you put in jail for holding a few grams (and disproportionately puts blacks in jail), when speeding at a potentially lethal level for both you and those around you is just a fine? — Philosophim

Yes, there is absolutely a great disparity of wealth in our society. Where is the outrage? I don't see the majority being outraged about it. In 2020 and 2021, the wealthy got wealthier, and the low income got the stimulus checks to make them happy for a few months and not realize that business owners, shareholders, partners got wealthier as a result of loan that turned into nontaxable income. Why is everybody so busy with covid when there's protest that should be done about being poor or low income? Oh yeah, because they were happy to collect unemployment twice what they were used to getting without working for a year. They shouldn't settle for that pittance.

The nature of Democracy is that plenty of people get a say. And it turns out that while many people have different views of morality, very few people seem to want to sacrifice their own comfort and money to help those who could really use a hand. Many laws are about preserving power over other people, and in a Democracy, that is much more difficult to do. — Philosophim

I think you should say, so many people are willing to settle for a lot less and avoid doing anything about it. They don't want to sacrifice their own comfort -- and what's that comfort? The comfort of being ignorant about why wealth creation is skewed one direction only. Do you know you don't create wealth by receiving a salary. You're being paid for the work you do, per hour. Creating wealth is making your money work for you, while you screw around town or around the world.

The result is that I was still confused by your question. I just don't know how to answer it. — L'éléphant

The first time you talked about "too many questions" that you cannot answer. I then told you how.
Now you talk about my "question". What question?

You can't make up your mind. I think the ball is lost. We can quit this game now.

:heart:

:heart: — Agent Smith

I'm intrigued by this symbol.
Could you explain what is this for?

You can't make up your mind. I think the ball is lost. We can quit this game now. — Alkis Piskas

My mind is made up. And this is not a game. If this is the best of your argument you can make, please quit now.

Society and Moral Opinion

No doubt we would all agree that a consensus of moral opinion on certain matters is essential if society is to be worth living in. Laws against murder, theft, and much else would be of little use if they were not supported by a widely diffused conviction that what these laws forbid is also immoral. So much is obvious. But it does not follow that everything to which the moral vetoes of accepted morality attach is of equal importance to society; nor is there the slightest reason for thinking of morality as a seamless web: one which will fall to pieces carrying society with it, unless all its emphatic vetoes are enforced by law.

-- H.L.A. Hart

I find the above quote as strongly supportive of enforcement of morality by legislation, but also a concession that not all moral beliefs should be this way.

So, in fairness to all in this thread, not all moral principles are subject to societal enforcement -- which, by the way, I mentioned in passing. But some morals are.

I'm intrigued by this symbol.
Could you explain what is this for? — L'éléphant

Look for a pattern! :grin:

Look for a pattern! :grin: — Agent Smith

heart

Enforcement of morality is the wrong way to look at it. If history proves anything, we're a band of miscreants - those same gangs of juvenile delinquents, loitering around, people dial 911 to report, that's us. We all have a tendency to be naughty, to put it mildly.

We're, in short, slaves to our nature (inherently bad/if you prefer, naughty) and to that extent, we're not free. Morality exists not to curtail our freedom but to aid us in resisting, put up a good fight against, that base nature and through that claim our liberty. Enforcement of Morality? Nah! More like Emancipation by Morality!

Vide Free Won't for context.

Enforcement of law? — Agent Smith

No. Incorrect attribution.

No. Incorrect attribution. — L'éléphant

Why split hairs when you don't need to to understand the point? Anyway, corrections made.

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

No society has a complete buy-in by all of its citizens. In fact, most laws, directives, decrees and executive decisions by any government encounters more resistance than not.

Whether it was a military regime, a communist regime, or a democracy, you can't say that the arrangement was not society.

Majority of the people also want abortions, or don't want abortions; it is a military regime that enforces it either way.

In fact, all those who break the law are punsihed by a "miliatary regime", the state's law.

Your logic keeps biting itself in the tail, and tries to swallow itself. Each of your arguments so far can be turned against your own arguments. This is tiresome that you don't see that.

I was only saying I don’t think you were necessarily speaking about defending society, but another group, the State. — NOS4A2

this is good.

Some examples of crimes against society: — L'éléphant

What you say here is true, but I'd go further and say all crimes are crimes against society. Should I assault you, the court caption would not read "Caldwell v. Hanover," but it would read "The State v. Hanover." If a federal offense, "The US v. Hanover." My lawyer would be whoever I hired, but you wouldn't have one because you're not a party. The state would be represented by a prosecutor.

That's not to say you wouldn't have a private right to sue as well, but that would be a civil action and not a criminal one.

Society has the right to enforce its laws is, I agree, a basic and fundamental notion for the preservation of that society.

The tension to these assertions arises when an unjust law is passed. The idea arises that the law itself must answer to a higher authority to be considered just, but injustice alone will not unravel a society. What will unravel it is the loss of power of the government over the governed. Injustice alone in free societies offers a basis for enough pushback by the public to change the laws. That isn't so in less free societies, where only forceful overthrow would be effective.

The tension to these assertions arises when an unjust law is passed. The idea arises that the law itself must answer to a higher authority to be considered just, but injustice alone will not unravel a society. What will unravel it is the loss of power of the government over the governed. Injustice alone in free societies offers a basis for enough pushback by the public to change the laws. That isn't so in less free societies, where only forceful overthrow would be effective. — Hanover

I have no contention with this. Unjust laws have existed. That's why laws are in constant review, like a trial and error, to make sure that what worked in the past is still fit today, or what didn't work in the past could actually work today, justly.

I was only saying I don’t think you were necessarily speaking about defending society, but another group, the State. — NOS4A2

We can't help but have a name to this society -- state, town, territory, a whole country.
But the essence is the same.

They shouldn't settle for that pittance. — L'éléphant

Agreed. Getting an education and a job would be a decent start.

No society has a complete buy-in by all of its citizens. In fact, most laws, directives, decrees and executive decisions by any government encounters more resistance than not. — god must be atheist

Did I not repeatedly say in the beginning of this thread that the majority is what makes the decision of society? Even the supreme court decide by majority votes. A society's laws do not have to be 100% approved by all of its members.

Agreed. Getting an education and a job would be a decent start. — Book273

I concur.

If morality is always about what should or should not be done in some particular situation or another, and a society is a group of individuals that have commonly shared values and beliefs, then what makes a society what it is are commonly held/shared moral beliefs (that which is considered to be acceptable/unacceptable behaviour by enough of the members as to maintain stability). Morality, then, amounts to the codified rules of societal behaviour. We could call these laws without issue. So, if an individual breaks the law, it is a crime against the moral/ethical code (one of which presumably most members agree).

I'm still not at all confident in calling all law breaking "crimes against society" for the simple reason that there ought be a distinction drawn between the amount of injury that the crime results in addition to who exactly is injured. For instance, there's quite a bit of difference, one would think, between the harm that jaywalking causes and say the amount of harm that defrauding the American people about the integrity of the 2020 election causes. Placing these two crimes on the same level trivializes the severity of injury that the latter has caused, while elevating the severity of the former by association alone.

So, while I generally agree with what I think your saying, I suspect that there's some much needed refinement so as to avoid painting the picture with too broad a brushstroke. There are also very different kinds of societies where the majority do not have much say in the laws.

So, while I generally agree with what I think your saying, I suspect that there's some much needed refinement so as to avoid painting the picture with too broad a brushstroke. — creativesoul

And society's answer to the severity of crimes is appropriate punishment. Obviously, not wearing a seat belt, you get a ticket. You get more tickets and they suspend your right to drive on public roads.

There are also very different kinds of societies where the majority do not have much say in the laws. — creativesoul

Yes, tyranny of the minority exists. It's been addressed by many political scientists.

We agree that morality is enforced. What next?

:brow:

We agree that morality is enforced. What next? — creativesoul

Therefore, talks about objective or subjective or relative morality is moot.

Well, that doesn't follow from what's written, but I do agree. Such discussions are a waste of time.

Well, that doesn't follow from what's written, — creativesoul

What doesn't follow? Does anything at all follow from a morality by reason of majority?

We agree that morality is enforced. What next?
— creativesoul
Therefore, talks about objective or subjective or relative morality is moot. — L'éléphant

Well, that doesn't follow from what's written, but I do agree. Such discussions are a waste of time. — creativesoul

What doesn't follow? — L'éléphant

See where you began with "therefore"? We use that term to indicate that a logical conclusion comes next. What you wrote after "therefore" did not follow from what I said and you agreed to.

Does anything at all follow from a morality by reason of majority? — L'éléphant

We've already established that it is not always a majority's morality that is enforced. So, the above question is moot.

Justice is the essence of morality. While we do impose restrictions (no theft, no murder, no rape allowed), we don't have an ethico-legal system that's geared towards prevention as much as it's designed to nab culprits. That is to say ex-ante ethics/laws (free will negated) is less appealing than ex-post ethics/laws aka justice (free will affirmed).

You're free to commit a crime. You'll have to pay for that -10 years in the slammer or the gallows!

That is to say ex-ante ethics/laws (free will negated) — Agent Smith

This is where we are. We're not free to commit a crime.

See where you began with "therefore"? We use that term to indicate that a logical conclusion comes next. What you wrote after "therefore" did not follow from what I said and you agreed to. — creativesoul

Did you really not read my OP where I said logical argument on this thread is irrelevant? It is irrelevant because the rule is, society dictates morality, which is enforced by the law.