:up: An noble objective, no doubt but what's our strategy, economically? — Agent Smith

Give me a sec, I'll launch my spreadsheet for the calculation per capita of the basic needs first, then entertainment second, then ability to enjoy luxury, travel, and leisure for everyone. :meh:

Just curious, what is the "big picture"? — Agent Smith

Utopian world, I guess?

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.

Enforcement of law? — Agent Smith

No. Incorrect attribution.

I am kind of leaning toward you operating at an oxygen deficient level currently. Don't write self help books eh. Maybe read a few, talk to a counsellor. Your responses strongly imply a deep depression state. — Book273

Tell me, @Book273, when was the last time you spoke the truth while feeling good about the world? Oh, yeah, right. You must only be thinking of telling selective truth -- one that awards your vanity, I suppose?

Stop taking cheap shots. Tell me why my post disturbs you -- not why my post disturbs me. My post doesn't disturb me, telling those bullet points in a public forum does not disturb me.

Look for a pattern! :grin: — Agent Smith

heart

It comes across as someone offended at making entry level pay and wanting to identify as being oppressed. I'm just stating my impression of how it reads. Been wrong before. — Cheshire

Try harder. That's a cheap shot.

Anyway, Yuval Noah Harari (Israeli historian) has an interesting theory which he writes about in his book Spaiens. It seems that back when religion was in heydays, it was impossible to get rich without, at the same time, making someone else poor (the economy didn't permit anything else). That's why the Church, he says, institutionalized poverty/austerity and was dead against money-lenders who charged exorbitant interests. — Agent Smith

Okay, thank you for a bit of history. But yes, that's a zero sum game. Which is also true today. People argue that it's no longer true. But they fail to see the big picture. It's not just satisfying the basic needs of a person.

Your "irony" is lost on me, Astro. — 180 Proof

Not on me. I can't answer your question, that's why I skipped it. I can't answer it cause my answer is irrelevant to what I said in the OP. If I answered one way, you'd have more criticisms.

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.

In essence the poor are forced/unwilling monks! To put it another way, monks are voluntarily poor.

Is being a monk the same thing as getting screwed? I guess for monks, it's consensual screwing but in the case of the poor, it's not (rape)! :chin: — Agent Smith

Okay, this is one good way to put it. Why I missed this comment earlier is beyond me.
It's one thing to voluntarily give up income and benefits to live like a monk. It's another when you try to make a life and you're just screwed. You feel frustrated, tired, helpless.

Really, low income-ness is thrust upon people.

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.

Many of the rural poor are more content and less stressed than the suburban & urban 'working poor' or 'lower middle-class'. — 180 Proof

Okay. But that doesn't negate what I said.

6. You face more opportunities to learn how to do things without relying on others. That's priceless. — Outlander

I think my no. 6 has a different meaning than your no. 6.

There are inconveniences that build up to work-related stress.

:heart: — Agent Smith

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

It might suck to be stuck in a place that manufactures public infrastructure supplies for rich "eco-friendly" regions. — Nils Loc

I was going to ask that this thread be deleted. But your comment deserves a reply. Yes, this is what I'm getting at. There are jobs that sacrifice health so that others could live in an eco-friendly environment.

Can you live without oxygen? — Outlander

I don't know. I haven't tried it yet. Maybe some people can.

It's a few dollars, sometimes less for a reasonable enough distance to walk after using public transport. — Outlander

So a public transport doesn't pollute the oxygen?

1. Cars are bad for the environment. You like oxygen right? You know that thing that lets you breathe and type this drivel? — Outlander

Can you drive oxygen to work?

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.

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

Personally I have partaken in 5 and 10.

Someone should take over this thread.

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

This tells me you're averse to pondering.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Also known as "society". — baker

Arguably.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.